Karnataka High Court
C. Madesh @ Avva Madesh vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 16 September, 2019
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5322/2019
BETWEEN:
1. C.Madesh @ Avva Madesh,
S/o Chikkaputtaiah,
Aged about 55 years,
R/o H.No.2550/5 in
Sy.No.D-5, A-D-5/1,
Mahadeshwaralaya, 2nd cross,
Kalidasa Road, V.V.Mohalla,
Mysuru-570002.
2. C.Manju S/o Chikkaputtaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
R/o H.No.2554/2, 3rd Cross,
Vontikoppal, Kalidasa Raod,
Mysuru-570002. ...Petitioners
(By Sri. Kiran S Javali, Advocate for
Sri.K.Chandrashekara, Adv. for petitioners)
AND:
Directorate of Enforcement,
Represented by Sri.M.N.Thyagaraj,
Asst. Director, Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue,
3rd floor, 'B' Block, BMTC,
Shanthinagar, K.H.Road,
2
Bengaluru-560027. ... Respondent
(By Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in
Spl.C.C.No.303/2018 on the file of XLVII Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases,
Bengaluru City (CCH-48) for the offence punishable under
Section 3, 4 and 8(5) of PML ACT.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned special counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.
2. A private complaint has been lodged in Spl.C.C.No.303/2018 against these petitioners and others. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are arraigned as accused No.1 and 2.
3. The genesis for the complaint is the offences committed by the petitioners and others under Section 302 read with section 120(B) of IPC pertaining to 3 Cr.No.108/2008, later which culminated in S.C.No.233/2008, wherein the judgment dated 26.02.2016, the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru has convicted the petitioners herein and it is contended that, in spite of committing the offence under PML Act and the petitioners have also committed the other offences under Indian Penal Code and they have also involved in many number of other cases and they are rowdy sheeters, they amassed wealth but the same was not explained by the petitioners and his family members. Therefore, the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement has invoked the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PML', Act) and registered a private complaint against them.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that, though the trail Court has convicted accused persons in S.C.No.233/2008, but the appellate Court in Crl. A. No. 414/2016 dated 14.08.2018 has 4 acquitted them. The learned counsel further contended that, except the allegations made in the complaint, there are no exact materials to show at this stage, as to what exactly the amount and properties which were acquired by committing the offence under Section 302 of IPC, particularly in S.C.No.233/2008. The learned counsel further contended that, even much prior to initiation of the said cases, some of the properties were purchased by the petitioner No.1 as shown in schedule A and B to the complaint. Therefore, the prosecution has to establish the offence under the PML Act during the course of full- dressed trial. As on today, it cannot be said that there is unbeatable prima-facie case in order to reject the bail petition.
5. Sri.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent has contended that, it is not only the case in S.C.No.233/2008 but, there are so many other cases wherein the accused involved in the offences 5 under IPC provisions and also they are rowdy sheeters. Therefore, they have to explain as to how they acquired those properties. Hence, at this stage prima facie materials show that those properties were acquired by means of money laundering, by doing illegal acts and committing offences under the various provisions of the penal laws. The learned counsel also contended that Section 24 of the PML Act which creates rider on the Court to grant bail unless the Court tentatively is of the opinion that the accused is not guilty of offence at particular stage.
6. Of course, the said provision imposes some responsibility on the Court to examine, whether there is any strong unbeatable case made out so as to come to a tentative conclusion that, the accused has committed such an offence under the provision of PML Act. If the materials available on record are insufficient and those materials required to be proved by producing materials, in 6 such an eventuality, the rigor of the said provisions, in my opinion, may not be applicable. Therefore, what the Court has to examine is whether a strong prima-facie case is made out in order to show that the burden is on the accused to prove that, they are not guilty at this stage.
7. On careful reading of the entire complaint averments, of course, there is an allegation that the accused being rowdy sheeters, have involved in many number of other cases. But, there are no materials placed before the Court to show as to in how many cases they have involved and what exactly the financial implication so far as those cases are concerned. Further, the main allegations made in the complaint are that they were involved in the offence under Section 302 of IPC and they were tried in S.C.No. 233/2008 which is the genesis for the complaint but rightly as contended by the learned counsel, in the said case, the accused have already been acquitted. Even though the accused are acquitted, the 7 complaint lodged by the respondent is not completely taken away because provisions of the offence under the PML Act are stand alone offences still the respondent can establish the case by placing sufficient and cogent materials during the course of evidence.
8. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, merely because accused are rowdy sheeters and the offence is invoked by the prosecution is under Section 302 of IPC, out of that they amassed wealth, when such accused/petitioners have already been acquitted that also to be taken note of by this Court.
Therefore, under the said facts and circumstances of the case, the offence alleged have to be proved during the course of the trial against these petitioners. At this stage, I am of the opinion that there is no such strong unbeatable case made out for refusing grant of bail particularly under 8 Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be released on bail in connection with Spl.C.C.No.303/2018 on the file of XLVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 8(5) of PML Act subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Two Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii. The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii. The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future 9 hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
iv. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against them is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE JS/-