0

Karnataka High Court Grants Conditional Bail in NDPS Act Case: Cited Insignificant Quantity of Ganja Seizure

Blog, High Court of Karnataka , ,

Case Title – Abdul Bashir Vs. State of Karnataka
Case Number – CRL.P. No. 4147/2024
Dated on – 16th May, 2024
Quorum – Justice H.P. Sandesh

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Abdul Bashir Vs. State of Karnataka, the Appellant, Abdul Bashir, a 34-year-old resident of Gullanpete Village, Aldur Hobli, Chikkamangaluru, Karnataka. On credible information, the Aldur Police found the Appellant watering 12 Ganja (cannabis) plants. The Police seized 80 grams of Ganja leaves and apprehended the Appellant, who initially refused to accompany them. The Appellant was charged under Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for cultivating Ganja plants.

ISSUES
Whether the Appellant should be granted bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the alleged offence under Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985?
Whether the small quantity of Ganja leaves seized from the Appellant can justify the continued detention of the Appellant?
Whether the State has sufficient evidence to support its allegations against the Appellant and whether there is any indication of a motive to falsely implicate him?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Act, 1985 prescribes the Punishment for production, manufacture, sale, purchase, import and inter-state export of cannabis
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Special Powers of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that only 18 grams of Ganja leaves were seized, which is a small quantity?
The Appellant asserted that the property where the Ganja plants were found did not belong to him and that the police falsely implicated him by planting the Ganja plants and taking photographs to fabricate evidence.
The Appellant had no prior criminal records, bolstering his claim for bail.

 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that 12 Ganja plants were indeed found and there was no motive to falsely implicate the Appellant.
It was contended that the Appellant was not only cultivating but also consuming Ganja, justifying his detention

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Abdul Bashir Vs. State of Karnataka, observed that the small quantity of seized Ganja leaves (18 grams) and recognized the distinction between this and the larger quantities in terms of severity. Despite the cultivation of 12 Ganja plants, the court considered the smaller quantity of Ganja leaves seized. The court decided of grant bail, emphasizing the smaller quantity involved and the lack of significant evidence of criminal intent beyond cultivation. However, to safeguard the interest of the prosecution, specific conditions were imposed on the Appellant. The court allowed the bail petition under the conditions that the Appellant must execute a personal bond of INR 2,00,000/- with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court, that the Appellant shall not tamper with the witness of the prosecution and that the Appellant must appear before the jurisdictional court on all future hearing dates exempted by the court for a genuine cause.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
Click Here to View Judgment

0

Cyber Harassment and Extortion: The Karnataka High Court Grants Bail with Conditions in Instagram Blackmail Allegation

Blog, High Court of Karnataka , , ,

Case Title – Akshay @Arjun Vs. State of Karnataka
Case Number – CRL. P. No. 4163/2024
Dated on – 16th May, 2024
Quorum – Justice H. P. Sandesh

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Akshay @Arjun Vs. State of Karnataka, the Appellant, Akshay is accused of blackmailing a woman he met on Instagram. The Appellant allegedly asked the woman for her nude pictures and after she sent them, the Appellant demanded for INR 1,00,000, threatening to share the images with her family and friends if she did not comply. The complaint was instituted by the woman, leading to the registration of Crime No. 593/2024 by the CEN Police Station, Bangalore City. The Appellant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

ISSUES
Whether the Appellant is entitled to bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the accusations against him?
Whether the accusations and the nature of the offense justify denial of bail to prevent tampering with the evidence or further harassment of the complainant?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for extortion
Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment
Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 prescribes the Punishment for publishing or transmitting material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the accusations were false and that the Appellant did not possess or share any nude pictures of the complainant.
It was emphasized that the Appellant had not shared the pictures of the complainant with her family, friends, or any social media platform.
The Appellant expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation and claimed no intention of fleeing or tampering with evidence.

 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented the seriousness of the accusations, emphasizing that the Appellant had harassed the complainant, blackmailed her, and extorted money.
The Respondent underscored that the action of the Appellant constituted a clear case of extortion, which justified denial of bail.
It was asserted by the Respondent that granting bail could potentially allow the Appellant further harass or intimidate the complainant

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Akshay @Arjun Vs. State of Karnataka, observed that the accusations involved harassment and blackmail through Instagram, where the Appellant allegedly demanded money in exchange for not sharing the nude pictures complainant. The court noted that the offenses under Section 384 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 64(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were not triable by the Court of Sessions but by the Magistrate Court, implying a less severe nature of the crime. Taking into consideration, the circumstances and the nature of the accusations, the court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellant with specific conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent any further harassment or tampering with evidence. The petition for anticipatory bail was allowed on the conditions that the Appellant must surrender to the Investigating Officer within ten days and execute a personal bond of INR 2,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount, that the Appellant must not tamper with the investigation or prosecution witness, that the Appellant must cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as required, that the Appellant must not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission until the charge sheet is filed or for three months, whichever is earlier and that the Appellant must mark his attendance once a month, especially on the 30th of every month, between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM before the Investigating Officer for three months or until the charge sheet is filed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
Click Here to View Judgment

0

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Revises Compensation in Motor Accident Claim, Reduces Amount by INR 4.45 Lakh: Highlights Calculation Errors

Blog, The Madurai Bench of Madras Court , , ,

Case Title – The Branch Manager of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mrs. Ramzan Begam and Ors.
Case Number – CMA (MD) No. 249/2021 and CMP (MD) No. 2123/2021
Dated on – 18th April, 2024
Quorum – Justice RMT. Teekaa Raman and Justice P.B. Balaji

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of The Branch Manager of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mrs. Ramzan Begam and Ors., originated from a motor accident involving a private bus and a two-wheeler driven by Akbar Ali, who died in the accident. His Children and wife, Ramzan Begum (Respondent) and other injured passengers instituted multiple MCOPs (387, 388, 389, 391, and 429 of 2016) for compensation. The Insurance company (Appellant) contested the award, especially focusing on the MCOP No. 387 of 2016. The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent based on the testimonies of the Witness (PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5). The Tribunal awarder compensation to Akbar Ali and his family based on his alleged income as an Operations Manager in Malaysia, converting his salary to Indian Currency and adding future prospects. The Appellant, thereby, contested the negligence finding the quantum of compensation, asserting that the calculation based on foreign earnings and future prospects was incorrect.

ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the driver of the private bus was negligent in causing the accident that led to the death of Akbar Ali?
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal properly assessed the compensation amount awarded to the family of Akbar Ali?
Whether the Tribunal correctly accounted for future prospects in the income of the deceased and applied appropriate deductions for personal expenses and dependency?
Whether the interest rate applied to the awarded compensation was appropriate and aligned with the legal standards?
Whether the grounds presented by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited in their appeal were sufficient to warrant a modification of the awarded compensation?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes that No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle, and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section
Section 3(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes that The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes the Appeal
Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Evidence to be taken in presence of accused

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that Akbar Ali was negligent and responsible for the accident and that moreover he was not exercising due caution while riding the motorcycle, which contributed to the accident.
The Appellant claimed that the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was excessive and not in accordance with the actual financial loss suffered by the family of the deceased and that the Tribunal did not appropriate deductions for personal expenses, thus, a higher percentage should have been deducted from the income of the deceased person for the personal living expenses, reducing the amount available for dependency.
Further it was asserted that the Tribunal overestimated the monthly income of the deceased and that the calculation of the income of the deceased was without sufficient basis. The future prospects should not have been considered or should not have been applied at a lower rate.
Moreover, the interest rate applied to the awarder compensation was too high, thus it was asserted for a reduction in the interest rate to align with the current legal standards and financial conditions.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the bus driver was entirely at fault for the accident and that the bus driver was driving recklessly and negligently, which directly caused the death of Akbar Ali.
It was asserted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was fair and just, given the circumstances and the financial loss suffered by the family of Akbar Ali and that the amount was in accordance with the legal precedents and the needs of the dependents.
The assessment done by the Tribunal of the monthly income of Akbar Ali was supported by the Respondents and provided evidence that Akbar Ali had a stable and significant income, which was appropriately considered by the Tribunal.
Furthermore, it was argued that the inclusion of the future prospects in the income calculation was justified and that Akbar Ali, being young and in stable employment, had a reasonable expectations of future income growth.
The Respondent maintained that the deductions applied for personal expenses were appropriate and aligned with the legal standards and argued that the Tribunal correctly calculated the amount available for dependency.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of The Branch Manager of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mrs. Ramzan Begam and Ors., discovered that the monthly salary of the deceased, Akbar Ali was RM 3000 which if converted to INR 45,000 with 25% as added future prospect, the income is INR 56,250 and after a 30% tax deduction and a 10% economic disparity adjustment, the final monthly income is INR 33,750. The court calculated the pecuniary loss of INR 40,50,000 using a multiplier of 15 and considering 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses due to three dependants. The court determined the Loss of Consortium as INR 1,20,000, Funeral Expenses as INR 15,000, Transportation Expenses as INR 15,000 and the Loss of Estate as INR 15,000. The court reduced the total compensation from INR 46,60,000 to INR 42,15,000, with an interest rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment.
The appeal was partly allowed by the court with specified modifications and that the Appellant was directed to deposit the reduced award within eight weeks. The claimants are permitted to withdraw their share as per the allocation of the Tribunal, with the share of the minor claimant to be held in an interest-bearing account until they reach majority. The claimants are required to pay court fees on the enhanced compensation amount. No costs were awarded and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P)  is closed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
Click Here to View Judgment

0

Factors Considered by Delhi High Court When Granting Bail in Cases Based on Circumstantial Evidence in Heinous Offences

Blog, Delhi High Court , , , , ,

Factors Considered by Delhi High Court When Granting Bail in Cases Based on Circumstantial Evidence in Heinous Offences

Case title: ROSHAN VS THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)

Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 2478/2023

Dated on: 20TH May 2024

Quorum:  Hon’ble MS. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for seeking bail in FIR No. 321/2016 dated 17.05.2016, registered at Police Station Gokal Puri, for the offences under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Chargesheet was filed against the applicant for the offences under Sections 363/302/201 of the IPC. The FIR was registered on a complaint made by the complainant alleging that his 3-year-old daughter (victim) had taken some money from the wife of his younger brother (the applicant) and gone out to eat some street food. It was alleged that the victim did not come back and despite all efforts, the complainant was unable to find her. On 18.05.2016, information was received that a quarrel had happened at H.No. 455, Gali No. 4/5, Indra Vihar, Mustaf Abad, Delhi 110094. Thereafter, information was received that a dead body had been recovered. It is alleged that the police found that there was no quarrel, but the body of the victim had been recovered from the drawer of the bed of the complainant’s brother, namely, Aftab Alam (the then husband of the applicant), at the aforesaid address. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant and his brother were living in the same house with their families. It is alleged that the applicant was upset due to the alleged affair between the mother of the victim (sister-in-law of the applicant) and her husband. It is alleged that on the date of the incident, the victim was sleeping and the other family members had gone out, when the applicant murdered the victim out of anger. It is alleged that the applicant disclosed that the applicant closed the mouth of the victim and then tied her mouth with a dupatta. Thereafter, the applicant allegedly threw the victim in her bed. It The applicant allegedly lied that the victim was out playing with other kids on the street. It is alleged that the body of the victim was discovered when the other members of the family noticed the stinking smell coming from the room of the applicant.

ISSUE

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

Section 363 (Punishment for Kidnapping)

This section deals with the punishment for kidnapping any person from lawful guardianship. The penalty can extend to seven years of imprisonment and also include a fine.

Section 302 (Punishment for Murder)

This section prescribes the punishment for murder. It stipulates that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine.

Section 201 (Causing Disappearance of Evidence of Offence, or Giving False Information to Screen Offender)

This section addresses the punishment for anyone who causes the disappearance of evidence or provides false information with the intention of screening an offender. The punishment can vary based on the severity of the primary offence, including imprisonment and fines.

  1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

Section 439 (Special Powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding Bail)

This section grants the High Court and Court of Session the authority to release an accused person on bail. It allows for the consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of the punishment if convicted, the danger of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence, and other relevant factors.

Section 437(1) (When Bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence)

This section specifies conditions under which bail can be granted for non-bailable offences, particularly emphasizing special consideration for women, children, and other vulnerable persons

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has clean antecedents and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the father of the applicant had made complaints to the concerned authorities regarding her false implication but no enquiry was done in that regard. He submitted that there is no eye witness in the present case and the entire prosecution story is based on circumstantial evidence. He submitted that the testimony of the witnesses that have been examined are contradictory. He further submitted that the dead body was not recovered at the instance of the applicant. The same was recovered from the then husband of the applicant, who has been discharged without examination. He submitted that the husband of the applicant divorced her while she was in custody. He submitted that the applicant was released on interim bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 27.07.2020 and her interim bail was extended from time to time. He submitted that the applicant was granted interim bail on account of HPC guidelines by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 02.06.2021 as well. He submitted that the applicant had surrendered on time on both instances and had never misused the liberty. He submitted that only 18 out of 30 witnesses have been

examined yet and the formal witnesses are yet to be examined. He submitted that the applicant has spent more than five years in custody and the trial is likely going to take a considerable amount of time.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State strongly opposed the grant of any relief to the applicant. He submitted that the offences involved in the present case are heinous in nature. He submitted that the victim was last seen with the applicant. He submitted that the nominal roll of the applicant indicates that the jail conduct of the applicant is non-satisfactory. He submitted that the applicant broke jail rules and was involved in a number of other offences while in custody, including her alleged involvement in jail riots. The allegations in the present case are grave and heinous in nature. The victim aged 3 years is alleged to have been killed by the applicant, who also happened to be her aunt, on suspicion that her husband was having an extra-marital relationship with the mother of the deceased victim. It is, however, not disputed that the entire case is primarily based on the alleged extra-judicial confession of the applicant. It is trite law that an extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless it inspires confidence or is fully corroborated. Extra judicial confessions are weak pieces of evidence, whereby it is incumbent on the Courts to exercise extra caution while examining the same.

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

At this stage, it cannot be denied that there is no direct evidence against the applicant and she has been implicated solely on the basis of the circumstances allegedly leading to the death of the victim, such as the victim having been allegedly last seen with the applicant. It is pertinent to note that the applicant admittedly used to stay in the same house as the victim. It is also not denied that the allegations in the present case are only made by the family members of the victim and the ex-husband of the applicant. There is no eye-witness to the commission of the alleged offence. It is settled law that when the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances has to be so complete that it leaves no reasonable ground for any other conclusion except for the hypothesis of guilt of the accused person. The allegations along with the defences would be considered during the course of the trial. Admittedly, only 18 out of 30 witnesses have been examined till date and the trial would take a considerable period of time. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb : AIR 2021 SC 712 held that once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible, and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail. It is also pointed out that the child of the applicant is now in custody her ex-husband, who divorced her during the pendency of the case. The applicant, being a woman, is undeniably entitled to special consideration while dealing with the question of bail, in terms of the proviso to Section 437(1) of the CrPC. In view of the above, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹20,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MM/ Link MM, on the following conditions:

  1. The applicant shall provide the address where she would be residing after the release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO;
  2. The applicant shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when directed;
  3. The applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country without the permission of the Court;
  4. The applicant shall, upon her release, give her mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep her mobile phone switched on at all times.

In the event of there being any FIR/ DD entry/ complaint lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal.  The present application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of considering the bail application and the same shall not be deemed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement

0

Supreme Court: PMLA accused exempt from S.45 Conditions when furnishing bonds as per summons

Blog , , , ,

CASE TITLE – Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement

CASE NUMBER – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2608 OF 2024

DATED ON – 16.05.2024

QUORUM – Justice Abay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

 The Appellants have been denied the benefit of anticipatory bail by the impugned orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with cases of the accused who were not arrested after registration of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) till the Special Court took cognizance under the PMLA of an offense punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.  The cognizance was taken on the complaints filed under Section 44 (1)(b). These are the cases where the Appellants did not appear before the Special Court after summons were served to them. The Special Court issued warrants for procuring their presence.   After the warrants were issued, the Appellants applied for anticipatory bail before the Special Court. The applications were rejected. Unsuccessful accused have preferred these appeals since the High Court has turned down their prayers. And the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by interim orders, had protected the Appellants from arrest.

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, prescribes the procedure to be followed by the arrest authority, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in money laundering cases.

Section 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, prescribes that the normal rules for criminal procedure, laid out in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), apply to investigations, arrests, seizures, and other legal actions taken under the PMLA.

Section 44 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, prescribes the powers vested in the Magistrate to make an arrest, and following that, can then decide on bail as per CrPC provisions.

Section 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, it empowers the court to take a bond for appearance from someone who could be issued a summons or warrant for their presence in court or from someone who is already present in court.

 

CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER

The learned senior counsel, appearing for the Appellants in Criminal Appeal at Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.121 of 2024 and the learned counsel representing other appellants have made detailed submissions that the power to arrest vesting in the officers of the Directorate of Enforcement (for short, ‘the ED’) under Section 19 of the PMLA cannot be exercised after the Special Court takes cognizance of the offense punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, and that ff an accused appears according to the summons issued by the Special Court, there is no reason to issue a warrant of arrest against him or to take him into custody. They further stated that there is nothing inconsistent between Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) and the provisions of the PMLA. On a conjoint reading of Sections 4 and 5 of the CrPC with Section 65 of the PMLA, was of the view that it was apparent that all the provisions of the CrPC would apply to proceedings before the Special Court from the stage of filing a complaint under Section 44 (1)(b). Only those provisions of the CrPC that are inconsistent with the specific provisions of the PMLA will not apply. As there is no inconsistency between Section 88 of the CrPC and the provisions of the PMLA if, after service of summons, the accused offers to furnish bonds for appearance in terms of Section 88 of the CrPC, the Special Court should normally accept the bonds. After furnishing the bonds, if the accused fails to appear before the Special Court, recourse can always be taken by the Special Court to Section 89 by issuing a warrant for procuring the presence of the accused before the Special Court. And noted that once cognizance is taken based on a complaint, the Special Court cannot exercise the power of remand under Section 167 (2) of the CrPC.

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

The Respondent submitted that once an accused appears before the Special Court, he is deemed to be in it’s custody. Though an accused against whom an allegation of commission of an offense punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA is made can apply for the grant of anticipatory bail, such application shall also be governed by the conditions in Section 45 (1). They further contended that money laundering is an offence against the nation. Therefore, taking into consideration the gravity and severity of the offence under the   PMLA, mandatory compliance with the requirements of Section 45 (1) must always be ensured.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

As the punishment for an offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA is of imprisonment for more than three years, in view of clause (x) of Section 2 of the CrPC, the complaint will be treated as a warrant case. Under Section 204(1)(b), the Court can issue either a warrant or summons in a warrant case. Therefore, while taking cognizance, the Special Court has the discretion to issue either a summons or warrant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also referred to on of it’s previous Judgement, Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors where it held that as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with an offence of heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper with or destroy the evidence or evade the process of law, the issue of summons is the rule. This Court held that in a complaint case, at the first instance, the Court should directly serve the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If service is avoided by the accused, initially, a bailable warrant should be issued. If that is not effective, a non­bailable warrant should be issued. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that it failed to understand the basis of the submission of the learned ASG that after an accused appears before a Special Court in compliance with the summons, he shall be deemed to be in custody. And noted the object of issuing a summons is to secure the accused’s presence before the Court.  It is not issued for taking an accused in custody. if a bond is not furnished under Section 88 by an accused and if the accused remains absent after that, the Court can always issue a warrant under Section 70 (1) of the CrPC for procuring the presence of the accused before the Court. In both contingencies, when the Court issues a warrant, it is only for securing the accused’s presence before the Court. When a warrant is issued in such a contingency, the accused don’t need to apply for bail. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that after cognizance is taken of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA based on a complaint under Section 44 (1)(b), the ED and its officers are powerless to exercise power under Section 19 to arrest a person shown as an accused in the complaint. And since the Appellants were not arrested by the ED until the complaint was filed, the appeals succeed, subject to some conditions The appellants shall appear before the concerned Special Court within one month from the date of the Judgement and shall file an undertaking before the Special Court that they shall regularly and punctually appear before the Special Court. And further stated that warrants issued against the Appellants shall be cancelled only after one month and held that the grant of the Anticipatory Bail is unnecessary.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

1 2 3 4 5 … 11