THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT versus M. GOPAL REDDY & ANR

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 79 · Decided: 24-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
79
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 79
79
THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
v.
M. GOPAL REDDY & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 24, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45 –
Applicability of, to applications u/s.438, CrPC – Held: Once the
prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under
the 2002 Act, the underlying principles and rigours of s.45 must
get triggered, although the application is u/s.438, CrPC – In the
present case, once the enquiry/investigation against respondent No.
1 was going on for the offence under the 2002 Act, the rigour of
s.45 of the 2002 Act would be attracted – Impugned order passed
by the High Court holding that the provisions of s.45 shall not be
applicable w.r.t the anticipatory bail applications u/s.438, CrPC
and granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.1 is unsustainable
– Further, the impugned order is erroneous even on merits, set aside
– Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Exercise of
discretion under – Economic offences – Held: In case of economic
offences having an impact on the society, the Court must be very
slow in exercising the discretion u/s.438.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Respondent No. 1 is apprehending his arrest in
connection with the complaint/case by the ED for the offence of
money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 and punishable under Section 4 of the said
Act. An enquiry/investigation is going on against respondent No.
1 for the scheduled offence in connection with FIR No. 12/2019.
Once the enquiry/investigation against respondent No. 1 is going
on for the offence under the Act, 2002, the rigour of Section 45 of
the Act, 2002 would be attracted. By the impugned judgment and
order, while granting anticipatory bail the High Court has observed
that the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall not be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
applicable with respect to the anticipatory bail applications/
proceedings under Section 438 Cr.PC. For which the High Court
has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nikesh
Tarachand Shah. In the case of Dr. V.C. Mohan, this Court has
specifically observed and held that it is the wrong understanding
that in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah this Court has held
that the rigour of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall not be applicable
to the application under Section 438 Cr. PC. In the case of Dr.
V.C. Mohan in which the decision of this Court in the case of Nikesh
Tarachand Shah was pressed into service, it is specifically
observed by this Court that it is one thing to say that Section 45
of the Act, 2002 to offences under the ordinary law would not get
attracted but once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in
connection with offence under the Act, 2002, the underlying
principles and rigours of Section 45 of the Act, must get triggered
– although the application is under Section 438 Cr.PC. Therefore,
the observations made by the High Court that the provisions of
Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall not be applicable in connection
with an application under Section 438 Cr.PC is just contrary to
the decision in the case of Dr.V.C. Mohan and the same is on
misunderstanding of the observations made in the case of Nikesh
Tarachand Shah. Once the rigour under Section 45 of the Act,
2002 shall be applicable the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 1
is unsustainable. [Paras 5 and 5.1][86-G-H; 87-A-B; 88-B-G]
1.2 Even otherwise on merits also, the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to
respondent No. 1 is erroneous and unsustainable. While granting
the anticipatory bail to respondent No. 1 the High Court has not
at all considered the nature of allegations and seriousness of the
offences alleged of money laundering and the offence(s) under
the Act, 2002. Looking to the nature of allegations, it can be said
that the same can be said to be very serious allegations of money
laundering which are required to be investigated thoroughly. In
case of economic offences, which are having an impact on the
society, the Court must be very slow in exercising the discretion
under Section 438 of Cr.PC.[Paras 6 and 6.3][88-G-H; 89-A, H;
90-A]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
81
1.3 The rigour of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall be
applicable even w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.