Bombay High Court
Amit Balasaheb Chandole vs Union Of India And Ors on 12 December, 2022
Bench: Makarand Subhash Karnik
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
PMB
Digitally IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
signed by
PRADNYA
PRADNYA MAKARAND
MAKARAND BHOGALE
BHOGALE Date:
2022.12.13
14:29:52
+0530
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1546 OF 2021
AMIT BALASAHEB CHANDOLE ..APPLICANT
VS.
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE
OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANR. ..RESPONDENTS
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.2890 OF 2022
MARATH SASHIDHARAN ..APPLICANT
VS.
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
AND ANR. ..RESPONDENTS
------------
Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Kushal Mor, Mr.
Dhiren Shah, Mr. Gopal Krishna Iyyer, Mr. Kunal Bilaney, Ms.
Mamta Harwani and Ms. Riddhi Dhamecha i/b. Mr. Dhiren
Shah for applicant in BA/2890/2022.
Mr. Rajiv Chavan, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Priyanka Dubey
a/w Ms. Megha Gupta a/w Aamrin Malik i/b. Hedgehog and
Fox LLP for applicant in BA/1546/2021.
Mr. H. S. Venegaonkar a/w Mr. Aayush Kedia a/w Mr. Kamar
Ali Sheikh, Mr. Bharat Mirchandani for respondent No.1-ED.
Ms. A. A. Takalkar, APP for State.
------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
HEARD ON : DECEMBER 06, 2022.
PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER 12, 2022.
1
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. These bail applications are decided by a common
order. The bail applicant in Criminal Bail Application No.
2890 of 2022 is by a 71 years old senior citizen, a
permanent resident of Mumbai since 1978. The applicant
has served in the Indian Navy for over 10 years. The
applicant was arrested on 17/12/2020 in connection with
ECIR/MBZO-I/40/2020 registered by the Directorate of
Enforcement (hereafter "ED", for short) for the offences
punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (hereafter "PMLA", for short). The
subject ECIR came to be registered on the basis of the
scheduled offences punishable under Sections 402, 406,
465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereafter "IPC", for short) registered vide MECR No.3
of 2020 of Yellow Gate Police Station, Mumbai, which was
thereafter transferred to Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai
(hereafter "EOW", for short) and registered as MECR No.5 of
2020. The EOW, after conducting a thorough investigation
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
in relation to the said FIR, has filed a C-Summary report
before the Metropolitan Magistrate's 47 th Court at
Esplanade. The Magistrate vide his order dated 14/09/2022
accepted the same. The first informant (Ramesh Iyer) filed
an affidavit of no objection for the acceptance of C-
Summary report.
3. It is the contention of learned Senior Advocates for the
applicants that as on date there is no predicate offence
whatsoever and since the scheduled offence does not exist
anymore, the PMLA case itself is not maintainable against
the applicant. The applicants therefore filed the present
applications for bail. It is pertinent to note that before the
Special Judge (PMLA) the applicants filed Exhibit 45 and 47
applications for interim bail post the acceptance of C-
Summary report.
4. The facts of the case are briefly stated hereafter.
The FIR came to be registered at the instance of one
Ramesh Iyer. On the basis of the said FIR dated
28/10/2020, the ECIR came to be recorded by the ED on
31/10/2022 for the purposes of investigating the offence of
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
money laundering. The applicant (Marath) was arrested on
11/12/2020 whereupon he was remanded to judicial
custody.
5. The ED completed the investigation and the complaint
was filed in connection with the instant ECIR before the
Special Judge (PMLA) at Sessions Court, Mumbai on
19/12/2020 which came to be registered as Special Case
No.1124 of 2020. The Special Judge rejected the bail
application preferred by the applicant by an order dated
21/01/2021. This Court rejected the bail application of the
applicant on 23/02/2022. Challenging the order dated
23/02/2022 of this Court refusing bail to the applicant, the
applicant has filed SLP (Criminal) No.2831 of 2022 seeking
to be released on bail. The SLP was preferred on merits and
is pending before the Supreme Court.
6. Now that the C-Summary was accepted, Exhibits 45
and 47 were filed for interim bail before the Special Judge
(PMLA). Learned Senior Advocates submitted that the
Supreme Court on 27/07/2022, passed a detailed judgment
in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and ors. vs.
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
Union of India and ors. 1 in Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 4634 of 2014, wherein the Supreme Court
inter alia held that if a person is finally absolved by a Court
of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge,
acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case
pertaining to a scheduled offence registered against
him/her, there can be no action for money-laundering
against such a person.
7. In the present case, the complainant, Mr. Ramesh Iyer
was the Managing Director of Topsgrup. Topsgrup entered
into a contract with MMRDA for supply of security guards in
the year 2014. The applicant was working as a Zonal
Director for West Zone. The complainant alleged that
though the Topsgrup under the contract was to supply the
specified number of security guards, however with a view to
defraud MMRDA, less number of guards were supplied.
Topsgrup claimed excess payment even in respect of the
guards who were not deployed. The applicant -Marath and
other accused being responsible officers are alleged to be
beneficiaries of the transaction. So far as the applicant-Amit
1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
Balasaheb Chandole in Criminal Bail Application No.1546 of
2021 is concerned, he was the one who facilitated the
contract between the Topsgrup and MMRDA and it is alleged
that he was also a beneficiary of the proceeds of crime. The
applicant-Amit was arrested on 25/11/2020. The ED
registered the ECIR on 31/10/2020. The Bail Application
filed by Amit came to be rejected by the trial Court. The
present application is filed for bail in April 2021. However,
subsequent facts are brought on record that a C-Summary
was filed by the Yellow Gate Police Station on 27/12/2021.
Application for interim bail of Amit and Marath at Exhibit 45
and 47 is decided by a common order. Though Amit's is a
regular application for bail, I have considered the grant of
interim bail to Amit on parity as a substantive challenge is
laid by Marath in the connected application. Learned Senior
Advocate appearing for Amit Chandole is justified in
submitting that these subsequent events be taken into
consideration as the question of liberty of the individual is
involved. He submits that this is a substantive application
for bail and in that a prayer is being made for grant of
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
interim bail. He further submits that specific averments to
this effect are made in the bail application preferred by Mr.
Marath Sashidharan in this regard and the same would
apply in full vigor to the applicant's case as well. It is the
contention of learned Senior Advocates that there were
some disputes between the complainant and the promoters
of Topsgrup. Complaints came to be filed against Mr.
Ramesh Iyer. As a counterblast, Mr. Ramesh Iyer filed the
FIR on the basis of which the ED case was registered. As
the misunderstandings were sorted out, the complainant
gave his no objection to the acceptance of the C-Summary
report. Even the MMRDA has no grievance regarding the
supply of the security guards. MMRDA has not made a
complaint that Topsgrup committed breach of the contract
or defrauded MMRDA.
8. Shri Venegaonkar vehemently opposed the
applications. According to him, merely because a C-
Summary report is filed and accepted by the Magistrate
does not take away the seriousness of the offence as
independent proceedings are registered and as charge-
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
sheet is already filed in the PMLA case. The applicants will
have to satisfy the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA.
The bail application of the Applicant-Marath has been
rejected on merits by this Court. In any case, the challenge
to the order dated 23/02/2022 refusing bail in the PMLA
case is pending before the Supreme Court on merits.
According to him, this Court therefore should not interfere
with the trial Courts order. He further submits that though
the C-Summary is accepted on 14/09/2022, the ED
proposes to challenge the C-Summary report in Revision.
The period of 90 days for filing the Revision is not yet over
and therefore, even the application made by the applicants
for bail is not tenable till the period of 90 days is over. He
further submitted that the main PMLA case is still pending
and the interpretation placed by learned Senior Advocate on
the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary and ors. (supra) is on an erroneous premise.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The ED
registered the ECIR dated 31/10/2020 on the basis of the
FIR dated 28/10/2020 which was lodged at the instance of
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
the complainant Mr. Ramesh Iyer, who had approached the
Metropolitan Magistrate's Court under Section 156(3) of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Pursuant to the arrest of
the applicant-Marath by the ED on 07/12/2020, a detailed
investigation was carried out by the ED and the charge-
sheet came to be filed. The Yellow Gate Police Station filed
the C-Summary report in respect of the FIR lodged against
the applicant. The complainant gave his no objection and
ultimately the C-Summary was accepted on 14/09/2022 by
the Metropolitan Magistrate.
10. At this juncture, I may refer to the pertinent
observations of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary and ors. (supra) decided on 27/07/2022.
Paragraph 33 reads thus :-
"33. Tersely put, it is only such property which is
derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result
of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence can
be regarded as proceeds of crime. The authorities
under the 2002 Act cannot resort to action against
any person for money-laundering on an assumption
that the property recovered by them must be
proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offence has
been committed, unless the same is registered with
the jurisdictional police or pending inquiry by way of
complaint before the competent forum. For, the
expression "derived or obtained" is indicative of
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence
already accomplished. Similarly, in the event the
person named in the criminal activity relating to a
scheduled offence is finally absolved by a Court of
competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge,
acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case
(scheduled offence) against him/her, there can be no
action for money-laundering against such a person or
person claiming through him in relation to the
property linked to the stated scheduled offence. This
interpretation alone can be countenanced on the basis
of the provisions of the 2002 Act, in particular Section
2(1)(u) read with Section 3. Taking any other view
would be rewriting of these provisions and
disregarding the express language of definition clause
"proceeds of crime", as it obtains as of now."
11. I will then refer to the conclusion of Their Lordships in
paragraph 187, the relevant portion from the context of the
present application being paragraph v(a) and (d) which
reads thus :-
"(v) (a) Section 3 of the 2002 Act has a wider reach
and captures every process and activity, direct or
indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and is
not limited to the happening of the final act of
integration of tainted property in the formal economy.
The Explanation inserted to Section 3 by way of
amendment of 2019 does not expand the purport of
Section 3 but is only clarificatory in nature. It clarifies
the word "and" preceding the expression projecting or
claiming as "or"; and being a clarificatory
amendment, it would make no difference even if it is
introduced by way of Finance Act or otherwise.
(d) The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is
dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is
concerning the process or activity connected with
such property, which constitutes the offence of
money- laundering. The Authorities under the 2002
Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or
on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been
committed, unless it is so registered with the
jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial
including by way of criminal complaint before the
competent forum. If the person is finally
discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the
criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of
competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of
money-laundering against him or any one claiming
such property being the property linked to stated
scheduled offence through him."
12. Learned Counsel Shri Venegaonkar emphasized that it
is only in the context of there being an order of discharge,
acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case
(scheduled offence) that the decision in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary and ors. (supra) can be made applicable.
According to him, this is a case where C-Summary report
has been accepted by the Metropolitan Magistrate which the
ED proposes to challenge and therefore not covered by the
decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and ors. (supra).
He further submits that the limitation of 90 days for filing
the Revision is not yet over and therefore the trial Court is
justified in refusing the applications for grant of interim bail
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
to the applicants.
13. The C-Summary has been accepted by the
Metropolitan Magistrate. The ED case before the Special
Judge (PMLA) is pending. I do not want to comment on the
merits of the contentions so far as continuance of the PMLA
case is concerned, for that is a matter to be decided in the
first instance by the Special Court. I am considering the
present applications strictly from the point of view as to
whether, in the light of a C-Summary being accepted, the
applicants could be released on interim bail. I also must
bear in mind that against the order rejecting bail on merits
by this Court, prior to the decision in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary and ors. (supra), the applicant-Marath's
challenge to the order refusing him bail by this Court is
pending before the Supreme Court.
14. When the question of a liberty of an individual is
involved, it is not really possible for me to completely ignore
the acceptance of the C-Summary report which virtually has
the effect of bringing to an end the proceedings registered
with Yellow Gate Police Station pursuant to the filing of the
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
FIR dated 28/10/2020. The proceedings in the PMLA case
before the Special Judge will obviously be taken to the
logical conclusion in accordance with law. The Supreme
Court has in clear terms in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary
and ors. (supra) observed that the offence under Section 3
of the PMLA is dependent on illegal gain of property as a
result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.
Their Lordships held that if the person is finally discharged/
acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case
against him is quashed by the Court of competent
jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money-laundering
against him or any one claiming such property being the
property linked to stated scheduled offence through him. In
my humble opinion, the effect of accepting the C-Summary
report, prima facie, is similar to the one as mentioned by
the Supreme Court in respect of those cases where the
person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled
offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the
Court of competent jurisdiction.
15. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, the
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
complainant at whose instance the proceedings were
initiated submitted his no objection to the acceptance of the
C-Summary report. The MMRDA which is alleged to have
suffered losses has not filed any complaint of breach of
contract or that they are defrauded. Of course, these are
matters to be taken into consideration by the Special Court
trying the PMLA case and my observations therefore, may
be construed as prima facie in nature for the purpose of
considering the request for releasing the applicants on
interim bail. Once the C-Summary report has been filed and
accepted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, in view of
the observations of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary and ors. (supra), prima facie, there can be no
offence of money laundering against the applicants. I do not
find any force in the submission of Mr. Venegaonkar that till
the period of 90 days for filing the Revision challenging the
order of the Metropolitan Magistrate accepting the C-
Summary report is over, the application for bail is not
tenable. The question is of liberty of an individual which is
valuable. The period of 90 days for filing the Revision
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
challenging the acceptance of the C-Summary report cannot
be read to mean as an automatic stay to the order
accepting C-Summary report. The Revision is but a
statutory remedy provided by law to challenge the
impugned order (acceptance of C-Summary). The limitation
prescribed for filing the Revision cannot be construed as a
stay to the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate. I do not
want to enter into the debate raised by learned Senior
Advocates that the ED is not even an aggrieved party, for
these are matters best left to the competent Court to decide
as and when the Revision, if any, is filed by the ED.
Factually, the ED has not filed the Revision against the
acceptance of C-Summary report. In my opinion, the trial
Court was not justified in observing 'that as a judicial
discipline the Court has to wait till the end of 90 days to
invoke his jurisdiction for entertaining the prayer for interim
bail on the ground that the order dated 14/09/2022
accepting the C-Summary report is neither absolute nor
final'. According to me, the finality to the order dated
14/09/2022 is not dependent on the period of limitation
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
provided for filing a Revision challenging the impugned
order.
16. The applicants are in custody for more than 2 years.
The maximum punishment for the offence under Section 4
is 7 years imprisonment. The applicant-Marath is 71 years
of age and a retired officer of the Indian Navy who has
roots in the society. The applicant-Amit is an entrepreneur.
There are no criminal antecedents reported against the
applicants. In my opinion, subject to the challenge, if any,
to the order of C-Summary and subject to further orders
that may be passed thereon, the prayer of the applicants for
grant of interim bail needs to be considered. Pursuant to the
filing of the C-Summary report and in the light of the
observations made in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and
ors. (supra), the applicants are well justified in filing the
applications for interim release of both the applicants on
bail, Exhibit 45 and Exhibit 47 before the trial Court which
deserves to be allowed.
17. As observed earlier, the order dated 21/09/2022 by
the trial Court is a common order passed in respect of the
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
applicants-Marath and Amit Chandole. The Bail Application
No.1546 of 2021 is filed by Amit prior to the decision in
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and ors. (supra). The bail
application filed by Marath is post the decision of Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary and ors. (supra). However, the
applicants had filed applications Exhibit 45 and Exhibit 47
for interim bail before the trial Court. On parity, even the
applicant-Amit deserves to be released on interim bail. It is
made clear that the observations made by me are limited to
releasing the applicants on interim bail for the reasons
mentioned hereinbefore and should not influence the
Special Judge (PMLA) while deciding any other applications
or the main matter on merits. Having regard to the facts of
the present case, on filing of a C-Summary report in the
EOW case, in the light of the observations quoted abbove in
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and ors. (supra), the rigours
of Section 45 of the PMLA will not apply. The charge-sheet
has been filed. The investigation is complete.
18. Hence, the following order :-
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
ORDER
(i) The Exhibit 45 and Exhibit 47 filed before the
Special Judge (PMLA) are allowed.
(ii) The applicants-Amit Balasaheb Chandole and
Marath Sashidharan be released on interim bail in the
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one or more sureties
of the like amount.
(iii) The applicants are permitted to furnish cash bail
surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each for a period
of 4 weeks in lieu of surety.
(iv) The applicants shall report to the ED once in a
fortnight on the 1st and 15th day of every month
between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m.
(v) The applicants shall not leave the jurisdiction of
Greater Mumbai without express permission of the
Special Judge (PMLA).
(vi) The applicants shall surrender their passports
with the Special Judge (PMLA), if not already
surrendered.
(vii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police
Officer. The Applicants should not tamper with
evidence.
1.ba.1546-2021.doc
(viii) The applicants shall attend the proceedings
before the Special Judge (PMLA) without any default
unless exempted.
(ix) This order granting interim bail is subject to any
orders that may be passed by the superior Court in
challenge to the acceptance of C-Summary report
dated 14/09/2022.
(x) On being released on bail, the applicants shall
furnish their contact number and residential address
to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him
updated, if there is any change.
(xi) It is again clarified that all the observations made
are prima facie in nature for limited purpose of
considering the request of the applicants for release
on interim bail and shall not be construed as an
opinion on the merits of the contentions of the parties.
Further, the order granting interim bail is subject to
the orders passed in challenge, if any, to the
acceptance of the C-Summary report.
19. The applications are disposed of.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.)
