HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Decided on: January 11, 2024
AMIT AGGARWAL VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

CORAM
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

PMLA Act Section 3 and 4 Grant of Anticipatory Bail The petitioner, is seeking anticipatory bail in an ongoing money laundering investigation The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleges that Petitioner was involved in a scheme to remit crores of rupees abroad using forged certificates and identities Petitioner argues that he was not involved in the scheme and that the ED’s case against him is based on the statements of cocons pirators who were coerced into making false accusations He also claims that he was physically assaulted by ED officials when he appeared for questioning – The ED contends that Petitioner was a key player in the scheme and that his fingerprints were found on some of the forged documents – The ED also points to the fact that Petitioner evaded questioning for several months before finally appearing before ED officials – The Delhi High Court has not yet ruled on Petitioner’s bail application The court is likely to weigh the evidence presented by both sides before making a decision The petitioner, a sick and infirm individual, is granted anticipatory bail after considering all facts, including co-accused statements under section 50 of PMLA, evidentiary value, no criminal activity, and the petitioner’s condition

Relevant Paras:

13. The counsel for the petitioner also argued that the twin conditions as per section 45 of PMLA are not applicable as the petitioner is a sick and infirm person and has already undergone repeated kidney surgeries and requires constant medical supervision and primarily relied upon Kewal Krishan Kumar (supra). The medical records/documents submitted by the petitioner reflect that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments including renal problem which requires constant medical treatment. This court in
Kewal Krishan Kumar (supra) has granted bail on ground of sickness and infirmity of the accused.
14. The CGSC also argued that the petitioner is avoiding investigation and his custodial investigation is required as the offence of money laundering involves multiple layers of placement, layering and integration. It is further argued that summons were issued to the petitioner to join investigation but the petitioner only joined investigation on 03.01.2023 and 04.01.2023 and subsequently avoided investigation. The CGSC also referred details of summons.

issued to the petitioner. The petitioner joined investigation on 03.01.2023 and 04.01.2023 and gave reasons for not joining investigation. The petitioner neither appears to be a flight risk, nor is he likely to influence any witness and tamper with the evidence.
15. This court in Vijay Agrawal (supra) also observed as under:-

22. The jurisprudence regarding bail is by now very well settled that rule has always been bail and its exception jail. It has also been stated time and again that such a principle has to be followed strictly. Right to bail is also essential for the reason that it provides the accused with an opportunity of securing fair trial. The right to bail is linked to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which confers right to live with
freedom and dignity. However, while protecting the right of an individual of freedom and liberty the court also has to consider the right of the society at large as well as the prosecuting agency. This is the reason that the gravity of the offence is required to be taken into account. The gravity of the offence is gathered from the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. It is a settled proposition that economic offences fall within the category of „grave offences.‟ While dealing with the economic offence cases, the court has to be sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the accused. Such economic offences normally involve the public exchequer and money of the honest tax
payer. The offence of money laundering in itself is a very serious offence. The money laundering not only is a threat to the financial health of the country but it may also adversely impact its integrity and sovereignty. Moreover, the act of money laundering can even lead to the collapse of the economic system.

To read the Judgment kindly click here

AMIT AGGARWAL. VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THE LAW LITERATES JUDGMENT DELHI HIGH COURT

All rights Reserved (Adv Vaibhav Tomar)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022)
DINESH GUPTA VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Reported Judgment 
In a landmark case, the Supreme Court of India has imposed a hefty fine of 25 lakh rupees in the Dinesh Gupta versus the state of Uttar Pradesh. This ruling follows a series of legal proceedings addressing grave allegations and ensuring justice. The case revolves around Mr. Dinesh Gupta, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, accused of committing a serious offense that attracted significant public attention. The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the evidence, considering the constitutionality of the allegations and the impact on society. The fine serves as a strong deterrent for similar offenses and highlights the importance of maintaining law and order while respecting fundamental rights and principles of justice. This decision has broader implications for legal precedence in Uttar Pradesh and India.

Relevant Paras 

Unscrupulous litigants should not be allowed to
go scot-free. They should be put to strict termsand conditions including costs. It is time to check with firmness such litigation initiated and laced with concealment, falsehood, and forum hunting. Even State actions or conduct of government servants being party to such malicious litigation should be seriously reprimanded. In the instant case, we find initiation of criminal proceedings before a forum which had no territorial jurisdiction by submitting incorrect facts and giving frivolous reasons to entertain such complaints. A closer look at the respondent’s actions reveals more than just an inappropriate use of jurisdiction. The core issue of the dispute, which involves financial transactions and agreements, clearly places it in the realm of civil and commercial law. Yet, the respondent chose to pursue criminal charges in a quest to abuse thecriminal justice system with a motive to seek personal vengeance rather than seeking true justice. This unnecessary turning of a civil matter into a criminal case not only overburdens the criminal justice system but also violates the principles of fairness and right conduct in legal matters. The apparent misuse of criminal proceedings in this case not only damages trust in our legal system but also sets a harmful precedent if not addressed.
3. A common order1 passed by the High Court2 dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants seeking quashing of the summoning order3 has been impugned in the present appeals.

34. The entire factual matrix and the time lines clearly reflects that the complainant deliberately and unnecessarily has caused substantial delay and had been waiting for opportune moment for initiating false and frivolous litigation.
35. Further, it has been noticed by the High Court in the impugned order that on an application filed by the appellants, an Arbitrator was appointed by the Delhi High Court vide order dated 15.05.2019 to settle the dispute amongst the parties and the said matter was still pending.
36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the FIR in question, if proceeded further, will result in absolute abuse of process of court. It is a clear case of malicious prosecution. Hence, the same is required to be quashed.

To read the order click here 

DINESH GUPTA VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Judgement_11-Jan-2024 The Law Literates

All Rights Reserved (𝔸𝕕𝕧 Vaibhav Tomar)

CRM-M-11983-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 09.1.2023 

CRM-M-14561-2022 (O&M)
High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh
(Anil Naggar Versus State of Haryana)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

PC ACT Section 7 Fraud job Scam Bail Accused being owner of hired Software Agency in connivance with petitioner allotted the work of online application portal by Haryana Public Service Commission had been securing jobs for various applicants by fraudulent means and were earning crores of rupees Complainant alleged that the modus operandi was that the said persons used to ask the candidates to attempt only 30-40 questions and to keep blank the remaining answers so that the same could be ticked as correct subsequently in OMR sheets Without commenting anything as regards the merits of the case but while noticing that the petitioners have been behind bars for a substantial period and otherwise enjoy a clean record and also that conclusion of trial is likely to consume time inasmuch as trial has not even commenced and charges are yet to be framed, further detention of the petitioners is not justified – Petition accepted and petitioners are ordered to be released on bail Appeal allowed

Relevant Paras 

4. Opposing the petitions, learned State counsel has submitted that in the present case sufficient evidence has been collected during the course of investigation so as to establish the complicity of the petitioners and that an amount of more than Rs.3 crores has been recovered apart from audio recording, FSL reports, WhatsApp chat and the opinion regarding hand-writing which would all indicate that the petitioners were hand in gloves with each other for the purpose of committing this fraud. Learned State counsel has submitted that while petitioner-Naveen was caught red handed at the spot when the complainant handed over an amount of Rs.20 lakhs to him, co- accused Ashish came to be nominated pursuant to the disclosure statement made by said Naveen and said Ashwani further nominated Anil Daggar HCS and clearly indicated his involvement. It has further been informed that the Pawan Gupta also came to be nominated on the basis of statement of Ashwani Sharma who clearly stated that Pawan Gupta had referred 5 candidates out of which 4 came to be selected but of course by dubious means. Learned State counsel has however, informed that while Naveen, Ashwani and Anil Daggar have been behind bars since the last more than 1 year, Pawan Gupta has been behind bars for the last 6/7 months. It has also been informed that none of the petitioners otherwise is involved in any other case. Learned State counsel has informed that charges are yet to be framed and as many as a total of 57 PWs have been cited.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions.

6. Without commenting anything as regards the merits of the case but while noticing that the petitioners have been behind bars for a substantial period and otherwise enjoy a clean record and also that conclusion of trial is likely to consume time inasmuch as trial has not even commenced and charges are yet to be framed, further detention of the petitioners is not justified. The petitions, as such, are accepted and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

to read the Judgment click here 

Anil Naggar Vs State of Haryana 09_01_2023_FINAL_ORDER The Law Literates

All rights Reserved (𝔸𝕕𝕧 Vaibhav Tomar)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPEAL NO. 163 of 2010

DARSHAN SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB
(Judgment Of Three Benches)

J. (B. R. Gavai)
J. (Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha)
J. (Aravind Kumar)

If the Prosecution Witnesses had failed to mention in their statements u/s 161 CrPC about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused cannot be relied upon.

#SupremeCourt observed  in Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab 2024

So, SC technically halted misuse of application u/s 319 CRPC against those persons who are not kept in column no. 2 of chargesheet or have been summoned in a case due to false implication/enmity?

Relevant Paras

25. In the face of the above evidence on record, can it be said that the presence of the appellant and Rani Kaur in the appellant’s house in the intervening night of 18.05.99 and 19.05.99, has been firmly and cogently established? According to us, the answer must be in the negative. There are several omissions that have been brought out in the cross examination of PW-3 and PW-4, which seriously dent the credibility of their testimony.
26. If the PWs had failed to mention in their statements u/s 161 CrPC about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused cannot be relied upon. Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation. The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance. [See : (i) Rohtash Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589 (ii) Sunil Kumar Shambhu Dayal Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (72) ACC 699 (SC). (iii) Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur Vs. State of Karnataka, (2004) 7 SCC 422 (iv) Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs. Chaluverapinake, (2003) 3 SCC 175]

27. Of course, PW-3 claims to be an illiterate witness and therefore, her testimony must be interpreted in that light. We are cognizant that the appreciation of evidence led by such a witness has to be treated differently from other kinds of witnesses. It cannot be subjected to a hyper-technical inquiry and much emphasis ought not to be given to imprecise details that may have been brought out in the evidence. This Court has held that the evidence of a rustic/illiterate witness must not be disregarded if there were to be certain minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the deposition.3
28. However, the testimony of PW-3 suffers not merely from technical imperfections, there are glaring omissions and improvements that have been brought out in the cross-examination, which cannot be attributed to the illiteracy of the individual deposition. If there were minor contradictions and inconsistencies, that could have been ignored since the recollection of exact details as to location and time can be attributed to the lack of literacy. However, such is not the case here. PW-3 had only heard from her husband that the appellant and Rani Kaur were seen together in the appellant’s house on 18.05.99. To that extent, it is merely hearsay. Moreover, PW-4 has omitted to state this fact to PW3 in his statement before the police. He has also omitted to state that he advised his wife (PW-3) against going to the
appellant’s house in the night since there may arise a quarrel between all of them. If these facts are ignored from consideration, we only wonder as to why PW-3 would visit the house of the appellant in the wee hours of the morning on 19.05.99. It seems quite unnatural for PW-3 to visit the house of the appellant at 430 am in the morning without any reason. If PW-3 was aware that the appellant and Rani Kaur were in an illicit relationship for a sufficiently long duration, there was no reason to suspect all of a sudden that the two of them would get together, administer poison and murder the deceased on 19.05.1999, which fact, prompted her to visit the house of the appellant at such odd hours in the morning. Both the Courts have failed to take notice of the several significant omissions and improvements in the evidence of PW 3 and PW 4.

37. Seen in this background, we need not go further and consider the evidence qua other circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution since the failure to prove a single circumstance cogently can cause a snap in the chain of circumstances. There cannot be a gap in the chain of circumstances. When the conviction is to be based on circumstantial evidence solely, then there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances. If there is a snap in the chain, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. If some of the circumstances in the chain can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis, then also the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. [See: Bhimsingh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 4 SCC 281.]

38. Therefore, we allow this appeal and set aside the concurrent findings of conviction.
…

to read the judgment click here 

DARSHAN SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB J U D G M E NT THE lLAW LITERATES

All rights Reserved (𝔸𝕕𝕧 Vaibhav Tomar)