LexROHIT TANDON versus THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 13 S.C.R. 156 ROHIT TANDON v. THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1878-1879 of2017) NOVEMBER 10,2017 [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 - Bail application C filed under s.439 rlw s.45 of PML Act - Allegation was that appellant-ac¢used conspired with a bank manager and a CA to earn huge pKofit by converting black money in the form of old currency notes into new currency notes and made illegal earnings - Prosecution under s.45 for commission of offence under ss.3 and D E F 4 of P ML Act as a sequel to FIR which was registered under ss.420, 406, 409, 46~. 471, 188 and 1208 !PC - Prayer for bail rejected by Sessions judge and then by High Court - Second bail application filed before High Court - Along with that, appellant filed an application seeking direction for his interim release on assertion that his mother was seriously ill and required immediate .medical attention - The said interim release application was allowed noting; that the appellant never evaded the investigation; the period of 7 months of incarceration; illness of his mother; and absence of definite reasqns assigned by counsel to substantiate allegation that appellant would tamper with evidence especially when charge sheet in the main case had been submitted - However, regular second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn - In the instant appeal, challenge is to the rejection of first bail application filed before High Court - Plea was that the reasons which weighed while directing interim release would apply proprio vigore for considering regular bail - Held: The observations made while allowing interim G release would have no bearing on merits of the controversy - The appellant has not succeeded in persuading about the inapplicability of the threshold stipulation under s.45 of the Act - Prosecution based its ca$e on the evidence of 26 witnesses - The same made out a convincing case about involvement of appellant in commission of H serious offence of money laundering - Thus, there were reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant was guilty of such offence 156 ROHIT TANDON v. THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 157 - Also appellant was reluctant in disclosing source from where such A huge value of demonetized currency and new currency was acquired by him - The volume of demonetized currency recovered from the office and residential premises of appellant, including the bank drafts in favour of fictitious persons and also new currency notes for huge amount, leave no manner of doubt that it was the outcome B of some activity connected with the proceeds of crime projecting the property as untainted property - Np case made out for interference with the order of High Court rejecting the prayer for grant of regular bail to the appellant - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - ss.3 and 4. Dismissing the appeals, the Court c HELD : 1. The possession of demonetized currency in one sense, ostensibly, may appear to be only a facet of unaccounted money in reference to the provisions of the Income Tax Act or other taxation laws. However, the stated activity allegedly indulged into by the accused named in the commission of predicate D offence is replete with mens rea. In that, the concealment, possession, acquisition or use of the property by projecting or claiming it as untainted property and converting the same by bank drafts, would certainly come within the sweep of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. That would come within the E meaning of Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the Act, being a case of money-laundering. [Para 23] [183-E-F] Manoranjana Sinh v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2017) 5 SCC 218 ; Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 : [2011 J 13 SCR 309 - distinguished. Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India (2015) 16 SCC 1 ; Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 768 : [2014] 6 SCR 783 ; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 450 ; Union of India v. Hassan Ali Khan (2011) 10 SCC 235 : (2011] 11 SCR 778 ; Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2005) 5 SCC 294 : [2005] 3 SCR 345 ; State of Maharashtra v. F G H 158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R. A Vishwaniath Maranna Shettv (2012) 10 SCC 561 : [2012]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.