Bombay High Court
Hemal Shah vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 27 November, 2019
Author: Sadhana S. Jadhav
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, Sadhana S. Jadhav
13-wp-4053.2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4053 OF 2017
Hemal Shah ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and anr. ... Respondents
Mr.Ajay Bhise for the petitioner.
Smt. S.D.Shinde, APP for the State.
P.I. Madhusudan Naik then IO at present attached to Meghwadi
police station present.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : NOVEMBER 27, 2019 P.C.:
Petitioner claims that he has supplied loose diamonds to two accused persons and in the process he was cheated. The charegsheet is already filed and in it the IO has mentioned that from the petitioner accused persons have received loose diamonds and jewelry worth Rs.55,35,50,127.16. The accused persons have paid to petitioner an amount of Rs.33,03,00,775.36. Balance amount of Rs. 22,32,49,351.80 has not been paid. Similar instances with other persons who had supplied loose diamonds are also mentioned. The contention nilegaonkar 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 20:49:59 ::: 13-wp-4053.2017.odt before this Court is the offence under section 420, 406 and 120B IPC is already alleged by the IO. As those offences are scheduled offences, provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ought to have been applied.
2. Learned APP submits that no material to show any money laundering has been brought on record and only complaint is of misappropriation or cheating. After completing the investigation, chargesheet is already filed.
3. We have therefore, asked the petitioner to demonstrate how in the present facts the case of money laundering is made out. There is no explanation for the same.
4. In this situation, we are not inclined to intervene in the matter. Needless to mention that if during the pendency of the trial or even otherwise if petitioner gets any other material, it is open to him to point out the same to appropriate court.
5. With these observations, we dispose of the present petition. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) nilegaonkar 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 20:49:59 :::