Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Karunakaran Ramchand Vs Economic Offence Wing (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : Bail Appl. 2819/2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 15/12/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Karunakaran Ramchand Vs Economic Offence Wing (Delhi High Court)

Conclusion: Where assessee was the Managing Director of ITNL when all the 10 alleged bogus contracts were awarded therefore, assessee’s knowledge and involvement in the alleged awarding of contracts could not be ruled out. Indeed, the Investigating Officer had interrogated the assessee twice, however looking at the gravity of the offence and the aspect of pending investigation relating to finding out the real beneficiaries of the siphoned off money, this Court found itself in disagreement with the submission that no more interrogation in custody was required.  Accordingly, the assessee’s bail application was dismissed on account of involvement of huge money laundering .

Held: Assessee had requested anticipatory bail in FIR and an ECIR had also been registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA Act in which assessee along with other accused persons had been named and also alleged to have indulged in money laundering. The complainant had alleged that assessee was awarding bogus contracts by ILRL to 10 companies from 2010 onwards involving an amount of approximately Rs. 94 crores. During investigation, the statements of officers of ILRL namely, Hukum Singh Chaudhary and Bindeshwar Prasad, who were in-charge of the site, were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which they stated that they had never heard of those 10 companies, to whom work was awarded and no work was executed by any of the companies. On inspecting the work orders, which related to clearance of land, no details of the affected shopkeepers or the description of the encroachment were found. The work contracts were awarded without signing any contract or taking any performance guarantee.  Assessee contended that the complainant’s allegation of being allured to invest and purchase shares of EIPL by assessee in specific and by the accused persons in general, was nothing but a falsehood and an afterthought. It was held that the alleged acts were committed when assessee was assuming office as a Director of ILRL and also as the Managing Director of ITNL. The ‘Committee of Directors’, which awarded the contracts, was constituted under the Chairmanship of assessee. The two contracts to M/s Suryamukhi Projects Pvt Ltd. and M/s AMR Constructions Pvt Ltd. were awarded during the assessee’s tenure in ILRL. In fact, assessee was the Managing Director of ITNL when all the 10 alleged bogus contracts were awarded. Assessee’s knowledge and involvement in the alleged awarding of contracts could not be ruled out. The investigation qua the assessee as well as the real beneficiaries of the siphoned off amount was still pending. Apparently, the money that was alleged to be siphoned off was public money and the offence was grave in nature. Indeed, the Investigating Officer had interrogated the assessee twice, however looking at the gravity of the offence and the aspect of pending investigation relating to finding out the real beneficiaries of the siphoned off money, this Court found itself in disagreement with the submission that no more interrogation in custody was required. Equally, assessee’s submission that it could be only a case of lack of supervision on his part, was not convincing as both Sanjiv Rai and Mukund G. Sapre were reporting directly to the present assessee. Further, this Court could not overlook the submission made on behalf of the State that assessee had occupied the highest office and as such, the risk of his tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses also could not be completely ruled out. The Court could not turn down the prayer of the Investigating Officer seeking custodial interrogation. Accordingly, the assessee’s bail application was dismissed.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT

1. The present application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 253/2018 registered under Sections 409/467/468/471/120B IPC at P.S. Economic Offences Wing, Delhi.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031