Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in any event, the twin limitations contained in Section 45(1) PMLA do not get attracted to the case of the petitioners. He has further submitted that the Scheduled Offences in the present case as mentioned is the complaint filed by SFIO against the petitioners on 29.11.2016, inter alia, invoking Sections 420/120-B IPC. It is an undisputed fact that these offences came to be incorporated by way of an amendment into the PMLA in the year 2009 that too in Part B of the Schedule thereto. Indubitably, the twin limitations for grant of bail contained in Section 45 PMLA only bring within their fold the offences under Part A of the Schedule that too punishable for more than three years. Insofar as offences under Part B of the Schedule are concerned, the initiation under PMLA could take place only if the total value involved therein was more than Rs.30 lacs. Therefore, with an object to remove the said monetary threshold, an amendment was carried out in 2013, whereby all offences under Part B of the Schedule were inserted in Part A. There was no legislative intent to invoke the limitations qua bail to such offences.

17. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the entire case is based upon the documents which are subject matter of criminal complaint filed by SFIO and this would be entirely a matter of trial whether the petitioners are guilty of accusations. The conduct of the petitioners is above bar and they have rendered all due cooperation to all the investigating agencies including the SFIO and that no ECIR could legitimately registered prior to the cognizance having been taken by the concerned court in the schedule offence. The proceeds of crime are seriously debatable issue and the respondent/complainant is only relying on the personal complaint filed by SFIO. The proceedings before the Income Tax Authority pursuant to direction are pending and petitioners would be deprived of the contest to those proceedings as well as the adjudication proceedings relating to attachment of immovable property as also their defence in both the criminal case in the present trial. The twin limitations contained in Section 45 (1) of PMLA are not attracted to the case of the petitioners because the schedule offence have been added in Part-A of the schedule by way of an amendment in 2013 and earlier they were in Part-B. The amendment was brought in only to remove the monetary threshold of Rs. 30 lacs and not to apply the twin limitations contained in Section 45 of PMLA. This issue has been raised by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gorav Kathuria (supra) wherein it was held that the schedule offence contained in Part-B prior to amendment in 2013, the twin limitations of Section 45 of PMLA would not apply. While disposing of the said case the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court had issued a certificate of appeal under Article 134 of the Constitution of India and an appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.08.2016 while dismissing the said appeal clearly held that the judgment of the High Court is correct. Therefore, the issue of applicability of twin limitations now stands accorded approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even if the applicability of twin limitations under Section 45 of PMLA are presumed to be applicable. There is no bar to grant bail as it is only a reasonable satisfaction that this Court is required to accord as to whether a case for bail is made out or not. In this context, the reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Ranjitsing Brahmjeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra And Another; 2005 5 SCC 294 and two judgments of Bombay High Court in Anil Babulal Chokhra vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai & Anr.; Bail Appl. No. 1581/2017 dated 04.08.2017 as well in Kailash Aggarwal vs. The Enforcement Directorate Mumbai & Anr.; Bail Appl. No. 174/2017 dated 28.02.2017.

25. The learned ASG on behalf of the respondent has submitted that at the very outset it becomes essential in the context of this matter to appreciate the parameters of grant or refusal of bail as envisaged under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002. It is noteworthy that Section 45 of PMLA entails with rigours before another decision is taken as to grant or refusal of bail. Rigours are that before a person can be considered to be released on bail. Public prosecutor has to be given an opportunity to oppose the application and if public prosecutor opposes the application then the Court will have to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence of Money Laundering and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. We would submit that the ordinary law pertaining to grant or refusal of bail or as canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioners that only reasonable satisfaction is required, could not be the correct law to be applied in PMLA case. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that mainly because the provisions which constitute the Scheduled Offence have been migrated to Part-A only in 2013 and, therefore, the twin rigours would not apply because the offending act on behalf of the petitioners as per the case of the respondent/department had commenced prior to 2013 is also incorrect.

26. In this regard, the respondent/department would like to rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India; (2015) 16 SCC 1. In the said judgment it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as regards the twin rigours of Section 45 of PMLA, that while there is no doubt that the conditions laid down under Section 45 of PMLA would bind the High Court as the provisions of special law having overriding effect on the provisions of Section 439 Cr.PC for grant of bail to any person accused of committing an offence under Section 4 of the PMLA. The said observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed in a subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No. 1223/2017 titled Union of India vs. Varinder Singh @ Raja & Anr. dated 21.07.2017 in which it has been held that when complying with a requirement of Section 45 of PMLA, the High Court should not have granted the bail. By this order the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the order of granting the bail passed by the High Court. The respondent/Department would also placed reliance on a judgment of a High Court of Karnataka passed in S.C. Jayachandra vs. Enforcement Directorate, Banglore; MANU/KA/0456/2017.