The Jharkhand High Court has observed that an accused in PMLA case who comes into picture after the scheduled offence is committed by assisting in the concealment or use of proceeds of crime need not be an accused in the scheduled offence.

The court said that such an accused can still be prosecuted under PMLA so long as the scheduled offence exists.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad observed that, "the accused against whom the complaint under Section 3 of the PMLA is filed will benefit from the scheduled offence ending by acquittal or discharge of all the accused. Similarly, he will get the benefit of quashing the proceedings of the scheduled offence. However, an accused in the PMLA case who comes into the picture after the scheduled offence is committed by assisting in the concealment or use of proceeds of crime need not be an accused in the scheduled offence. Such an accused can still be prosecuted under PMLA so long as the scheduled offence exists."

Counsel Indrajit Sinha and Counsel Shailesh Poddar appeared for the petitioner, while Counsel Amit Kumar Das and Counsel Saurav Kumar appeared for the respondent.

An application seeking anticipatory bail was filed in case involving offences under Sections 120B, 420, 471, 473, 476, and 484 of the IPC and Section 3 read with Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

The prosecution alleged that a Chief Engineer in the Rural Work Department, Jharkhand, orchestrated bribery-related proceeds, funneled through the petitioner, who is a Delhi-based CA, into the accounts of Ram's family members. The petitioner was accused of facilitating this fund routing through his employees' and relatives' accounts.

The Court observed that, "prima-facie it appears that the present petitioner is involved in concealment and diversification of the property/money of xxx as would appear from the ECIR which is having cross-border implication since the money was concealed and diversified in Delhi which has been procured by Veerendra Kumar Ram while working as Engineer in Jamshedpur in the State of Jharkhand."

In light of the same, it was held that the applicant failed to make out a special case for exercise of power to grant bail and considering the facts and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication of anticipatory bail.

Appearances:

Petitioner: Counsels Indrajit Sinha, Shailesh Poddar

Respondent: Counsels Amit Kumar Das, Saurav Kumar

Cause Title: Mukesh Mittal vs Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Jharkhand High CourtJustice Sujit Narayan PrasadPrevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)

Verdictum News Desk