TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1882
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 2002 (for short 'Act 2002'), which is punishable under Section 4 of Act 2002. 3. The prosecution case in brief is like this: The accused in the above crime were the promoters of a company by name, 'Kannur Urban Nidhi Limited' (KUNL), which is offering 12 to 12.5% interest on fixed deposits. The company had accepted fixed deposits from several investors. According to the prosecution, the accused diverted those funds for the establishment and running of another company by name, 'Anytime Money Pvt. Ltd.' (ATM) and to the personal accounts of the petitioners and other accused. According to the prosecution, the accused embezzled around Rs.40 Crores by cheating the investors. So many cases are registered against the accused by the Crime Branch of Kannur and Kasaragod units. Hence, it is alleged that the accused also committed the offence under Section 4 of the Act, 2002. Hence, the present case is filed. The petitioners in B.A. No. 1032/2025 and B.A No. 741/2025 were arrested on 27.11.2024 and 29.11.2024, respectively. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate. 5. Adv. P. Sanjay,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 25 of Annexure-4 order passed in B.A. No.2339/2024, produced along with the note & compilation. The counsel appearing for the petitioner in B.A. No.1032/2025 also submitted that the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail. In addition to that, the counsel submitted that there are no materials to connect the petitioner to the case except the statement under Section 50 of the Act 2002. 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate replied to all the contentions submitted by the petitioners. The Standing Counsel submitted that, in light of the judgment of this Court in Vimal K. Mohanan v. State [2023 KHC 9028], the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to statutory bail is not sustainable. The Standing Counsel also submitted a compilation of judgments showing the validity of the statements under Section 50 of Act 2002. The Standing Counsel also made available the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate and took me through the specific allegations against the petitioners. The Standing Counsel submitted that, in addition to the statements under Section 50 of the Act 2002, there are materials against the petitioners and, therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6) Order of the Adjudication Authority in OA 1374/24 not produced. 7) Documents No. 3 & 4 not certified. 8) No photo affixed on Doc. No. 21. 9) No proforma attached with Doc. 27. 10) No photo affixed on Doc. No. 28, 30 and 33. 11) No proforma attached with Doc. No. 29. 12) Transcript of A/c only produced as Doc. No. 43. No certificate. 13) A/c No. differs in certificate u/s 24 in Doc. No. 63. 14) In Doc. No. 80, date of Doc. No. 3324/13 SRO Vadakkanchery is incorrect. 15) Date of DOC No. 694/08 of SRO Vadakkanchery is incorrect." 9. The reply submitted by the department to the above defects is also forwarded by the learned Special Judge. This Court perused the above report and reply in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Vimal K. Mohanan's case (supra). It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Vimal K. Mohanan's case (supra): "8. As discussed earlier, the criteria for deciding the entitlement for default bail is completion of the investigation and not filing of the final report. The word 'final report' is not mentioned in S.167. Therefore, when faced wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part-A of the Schedule shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless:- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm, or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs: Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by- (i) the Director; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government." 12. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstitution or for that matter, Article 21 being procedure established by law. In a given case, whether the protection given to the accused who is being prosecuted for the offence of money-laundering, of Section 25 of the Evidence Act is available or not, may have to be considered on case-to-case basis being rule of evidence." 14. The Apex Court in the Union of India through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad [2025 SCC OnLine SC 306] considered the matter again. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment: "18. Though it was sought to be submitted by learned senior Advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar for the respondent that the appellant had relied upon the statements of the respondent recorded under Section 50 of the Act which were inadmissible in evidence, the said submission cannot be accepted in view of the position of law settled by this Court in Vijay Madanlal (supra) in which it has been held inter alia that the person summoned under Section 50(2) is bound to attend in person or through authorized agents before the authority and to state truth upon any subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statements and to p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....personal expenses. • He confirmed that KUN and ATM were co-managed by him and others. • He was confronted with multiple statements from other accused and witnesses, where he denied allegations against him but admitted to fund transfers. 3. Financial Transactions and Property Acquisition: • Evidence shows large sums transferred to Antony Sunny's firms and family accounts, including Rs. 7 crores from KUN and ATM • Properties were allegedly acquired using funds originating from KUN, including a commercial land and resort in Guruvayur. V. EVIDENCES AGAINST GAFOOR K.Μ (Α3): 1. Statements of Witnesses Under Section 50 of PMLA: • Employees confirmed that KUN and ATM were operated under the directions of Gafoor, with funds being misappropriated and used for personal expenses. • Abdul Razack, a shareholder, stated that he was unknowingly made a shareholder and later learned that Gafoor and Antony Sunny controlled KUN. • Firos P.I. (driver of Gafoor) confirmed that cash withdrawals were made under Gafoor's instructions. 2. Gafoor's Own Statement Under Sectio....