Case Law Details
Saumya Chaurasia Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Supreme Court of India)
Conclusion: Under section 45 of PMLA Act, the extent of involvement of the persons falling in such category in the alleged offences, the nature of evidence collected by the investigating agency etc., would be material considerations. There was neither discharge nor acquittal nor quashing of the criminal case by the court of competent jurisdiction against Suryakant Tiwari in the predicate/ scheduled offence. Since there was an attempt made by and on behalf of the Appellant to misrepresent the facts by making incorrect statements in the appeal for assailing the impugned order passed by the High Court, the appeal deserved to be dismissed and was accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.1 Lakh, which should be deposited by the Appellant before the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority.
Held: A search and seizure action under Section 132 was carried out against an individual named Suryakant Tiwari. Deputy Director of Income Tax Investigation lodged an FIR against Suryakant Tiwari for the offenses under Sections 186, 204, 120-B and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Later Section 384 of IPC was added on 03.09.2022. Appellant- Saumya Chaurasia, who happened to be the Deputy Secretary, in the office of the Chief Minister, Chhattisgarh, came to be arrested under the said ECIR. She was remanded to ED custody till 06.12.2022, which came to be extended till 10.12.2022 by the Special Court. In the instant case, there was sufficient evidence collected by the Enforcement Directorate to prima facie come to the conclusion that the appellant who was Deputy Secretary and OSD in the Office of the Chief Minister, was actively involved in the offence of Money Laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA. As against that there was nothing on record to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the appellant was not guilty of the said offence and the special benefit as contemplated in the proviso to Section 45 should be granted to the appellant who was a lady. The Court also did not find any substance for the Appellant that the scheduled offences i.e. Section 384 and 120 B having been dropped from the chargesheet submitted against the accused Suryakant Tiwari in connection with the FIR No. 129 of 2022 registered at Kadugodi Police Station and the ACJM Bengaluru having taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 204 and 353 IPC only, which were not the scheduled offences under the PMLA Act, no scheduled offence survived at the time of passing of the impugned order and that the proceedings were without jurisdiction. Apart from the fact that neither the Chargesheet dated 06.2023 nor the cognizance order 16.06.2023 were placed on record during the course of arguments before the High Court as they never existed at that time, the I.O. in the Chargesheet filed in connection with the said FIR no. 129 of 2022 against Suryakant Tiwari had categorically mentioned that as the accused (Suryakant Tiwari) found to be committed offence under Section 384 of IPC with his henchmen at Chhattisgarh State for which the report would be prayed to Chhattisgarh Police through proper channel. Hence, the offence under Section 384 could not be said to have been dropped by the I.O. while submitting the chargesheet in respect of the said FIR. In essence, the courts should exercise the discretion judiciously using their prudence, while granting the benefit of the first proviso to Section 45 PMLA to the category of persons mentioned therein. The extent of involvement of the persons falling in such category in the alleged offences, the nature of evidence collected by the investigating agency etc., would be material considerations. In the instant case, there was neither discharge nor acquittal nor quashing of the criminal case by the court of competent jurisdiction against Suryakant Tiwari in the predicate/ scheduled offence. Since the Court had found that there was an attempt made by and on behalf of the Appellant to misrepresent the facts by making incorrect statements in the appeal for assailing the impugned order passed by the High Court, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.1 Lakh, which shall be deposited by the Appellant before the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Leave granted.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
