Case Law Details
Anandrao Vithoba Adsul Vs Enforcement Directorate (Bombay High Court)
Conclusion: The plea by assessee to quash Enforcement Directorate summons in a money laundering case was quashed as assessee had failed to make out a case for interference for the invocation of 226 of the Constitution and 482 of Cr.P.C.
Held: Assessee contended that there was no predicate offence against assessee and as per the mandate under the PMLA, if there was no predicate offence registered against assessee, the proceedings under the Act could not proceed further as against assessee. Further, the summons issued and the ECIRs were vitiated by malafides and malice, and where malafides and malice on the part of the authorities were demonstrated, this Court in the exercise of its writ and inherent jurisdiction should pass orders protecting the liberty of the citizens. The prayer by assessee that ED be restrained from taking assessee in custody was nothing but prayer for a grant of anticipatory bail. Without having copies of the ECIRs, assessee could not approach the competent court with a prayer for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C. was misplaced. Assessee apprehended his arrest, and section 438 of Cr.P.C. provides a statutory remedy for such a contingency. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., the Apex Court had observed that when the entire material was not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing any interim order not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under section 438 of CrP.C. to the competent court. At this stage, Respondent demonstrated what material was against assessee since assessee was the one who had filed the FIR regarding predicate offence. Considering that assessee had a statutory remedy under section 438 of Cr.P.C. and any observation against assessee would prejudice assessee in case assessee approached the competent court for anticipatory bail; there was no material against assessee. Furthermore, having concluded after examining the facts that exercise of jurisdiction under section 226 of the Constitution of India and 482 of Cr. P.C was not warranted. There was no question of granting any such relief as sought for by assessee as it would be contrary to the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 23(xvi) of the decision in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Therefore, considering the grounds urged by assessee in the invocation of 226 of the Constitution and 482 of Cr.P.C., assessee had failed to make out a case for interference. As regards the protection from arrest was concerned, assessee had a remedy under the Cr.P.C.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER of BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
