Case Law Details
Anil Kumar Sharma Vs Enforcement Directorate, Lucknow Zone (Allahabad High Court)
Conclusion: Money laundering is a serious economic offence and serious threat to the national economy and national interest and, these offences are committed with cool calculation with the motive of personal gain regardless of the consequences on the society. The bail application by the accused-applicant, who was Managing Director of Amrapali Group of Companies got rejected as considering the order dated 23.7.2019 passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No.940 of 2017, in which involvement of the accused in offence had been meticulously flagged, his conduct before the Supreme Court and, the fact that the investigation was still on and money trail had to be completely unearthed, it would not be appropriate to enlarge the accused on bail.
Held:Amrapali Group of Companies entered into real estate business and construction of houses/flats and other real estate projects such as commercial spaces. They offered to construct approximately 4200 flats/houses in various projects. Dream of flat/home buyers having their own house got shattered and came crushing down when M/s. Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited and M/s. Amrapali Centurian Park Private Limited were found in serious breachs of their obligation to deliver the flats within stipulated period of 36 months. They defaulted in making payment to the Noida or Greater Noida Authorities and also repayment of loan taken from the financial institution. Some of the flat buyers who had seen no other remedy and light in tunnel to protect and secure their interest, had approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, leading petition being in Writ Petition (Civil) No.940 of 2017: Bikram Chatterjee vs Union of India and others. Thousands of intervention applications were also filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court looking at the plight and distress of the home/flat buyers entertained the petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as huge public interest was involved in the matter. The Supreme Court made endeavour to see that the management of these group of companies completed the projects and delivered the possession of the homes/flats to the buyers from whom they had collected the money ranging 40-100% of the total sale consideration. In view thereof, the Supreme Court directed the builder to deposit 10% of the dues to Noida Authorities and also asked the builders regarding date of possession in respect of flats/homes where occupancy certificate and no objection certificate had been granted by the authorities. The Court granted liberty to the flat owners to complete the finishing work. The amount was not deposited nor any promise got extracted from the builders. In view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, the Directorate of Enforcement had undertaken the investigation for offences regarding money-laundering by the accused-applicant and other accused. In view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, a complaint under Section 3/4 of the PMLA was filed before the Special Judge, PMLA/Sessions Judge, Lucknow. The further investigation to unearth the money trail by the accused-applicant and the other accused, was still on. Some details, as unearthed regarding money-laundering and the acquisition of properties from the proceeds of crime, had been given in the complaint. The bail application had been filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by the accused-applicant, who was Managing Director of Amrapali Group of Companies after his application for bail got rejected by Special Judge/Sessions Court PMLA, Lucknow . It was held that the object of PMLA is to prevent money-laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money-laundering. Section 44 of the PMLA confers jurisdiction on special court to deal with the offences under PMLA. Section 45 of the PMLA makes the offence of money laundering cognizable and non-bailable notwithstanding anything contained in Code of criminal Procedure, 1973. Money laundering is a serious economic offence and serious threat to the national economy and national interest and, these offences are committed with cool calculation with the motive of personal gain regardless of the consequences on the society. Considering the order dated 23.7.2019 passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No.940 of 2017, in which involvement of the accused in offence had been meticulously flagged, his conduct before the Supreme Court and, the fact that the investigation was still on and money trail had to be completely unearthed, it would not be appropriate to enlarge the accused on bail. Therefore, the plea for bail was refused and the bail application was rejected.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
1. This bail application has been filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CrPC’) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PMLA’) by the accused-applicant, who is Managing Director of Amrapali Group of Companies (fourteen in numbers) after his application for bail got rejected by Special Judge/Sessions Court PMLA, Lucknow vide order dated 15.07.2020 passed in Bail Application No.2458 of 2020 filed in ED Case No. ECIR/06/PMLA/LKZO/2019 under Section 3/4 of the PMLA., Police Station Enforcement Directorate, Lucknow Zone.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
