2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 273/2019
Shyam Sunder Singhvi S/o Shri Kastoor Chand Singhvi, R/o 301-
N-1 Road, Bhupalpura, Udaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Through Uma Nand Vijay, Assistant Director,
Enforcement Directorate, Second Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-Ii, L.i.c.
Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur 302005
----Respondent
Connected With
Dr.Ashok Singhvi S/o Dr.A.M. Singhvi, R/o 7 Hospital Road, C
Scheme, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through PP.
2. Umanand Vijay, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate,
Second Floor, Jeevan Nidhi II, LIC Office, Bhawani Singh
Road, Jaipur 302005.
----Respondents
Tamanna Begum Widow Of Late Mohammad Sher Khan, R/o
Khwaja Bagh Vill. Saba Ps Shambhupura Dist. Chittorgarh
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate, 2nd Floor Jeevan
Nidhi 2nd LIC Bhawan Bhawani Singh Road Jaipur
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2872/2019
Tamanna Begum Widow Of Late Mohammad Sher Khan, R/o
Khwaja Bagh, Village Saba, Ps Shambhupura, District
Chittorgarh, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 30/03/2020 at 04:23:06 PM)

(2 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
Enforcement Directorate, Through Its Assistant Director

Umanand Vijay, 2nd Floor, Jeevan Nidhi 2nd, LIC Bhawan, Bhawani
Singh Road, Jaipur, Raj.
----Respondent
Pushkar Raj Ameta S/o Shri Indra Lal Ameta, R/o 13, New Ashok
Vihar, Chand Badi, Khara Kuan, Udaipur, Raj. 313001.
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Umanand Vijay, Assistant Director,
Directorate Of Enforcement, Second Floor, Jeevan Nidhi II,
Jeevan Beema Nigam Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur, Raj.
----Respondent
Pankaj Gehlot S/o Shri Ishwar Singh Gehlot, R/o A 204,
Dharendra Apartment, New Navrat Complex, Udaipur, Raj.
313001.
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Umanand Vijay, Assistant Director,
Directorate Of Enforcement, Second Floor, Jeevan Nidhi II,
Jeevan Beema Nigam Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur, Raj.
----Respondent
Dr. Ashok Singhvi S/o Dr. A.m. Singhvi, R/o 7, Hospital Road, C
Scheme, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Umanand Vijay, Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate,
Second Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-II, L.I.C. Office, Bhawani Singh Road,
Jaipur, Raj. 302005.
----Respondent
Shyam Sunder Singhvi S/o Shri Kastoor Chand Singhvi, R/o 301-
N-1 Road, Bhupalpura, Udaipur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus

(3 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
Union Of India, Through Shri Uma Nand Vijay, Assistant Director,

Enforcement Directorate, Second Floor, Jeevan Nidhi II, L.I.C.
Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur.
----Respondent
Mohammad Rashid Sheikh S/o Shri Akbar Deen Sheikh, R/o Nayi
Abadi Khajodpur, Village Sava, Police Station Shambhupura,
District Chittorgarh, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
Umanand Vijay, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate,
Second Floor, Jeevan Nidhi II, L.I.C. Building, Bhawani Singh
Road, Jaipur 302005, Raj.
----Respondent
Dheerendra Singh @ Chintoo S/o Shri Surya Baksh Singh, R/o
48F, Rishabh Nagar, Kalka Mata Road, Udaipur Rajasthan
313001.
----Petitioner
Versus
Umanand Vijay, Assistant Director, Directorate Of Enforcement,
2nd Floor, Jeevan Nidhi II, LIC Building, Bhawani Singh Road
Jaipur 302005.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. assisted by

Mr. Mohit Khandelwal, Adv. & Mr.
Deepak Chauhan, Adv., Mr. Rajendra
Prasad, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Karan
Tibrewal, Adv., Mr. Vivek Raj Singh
Bajwa, Adv. Mr. S.S. Hora, Adv., Mr.
Shobhit Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Vikas Kabra,
Adv., Mr. Peush Nag, Adv., Mr. Vikas
Jain,Adv., Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni,
Adv. with Mr. R.M., Sharma, Adv., Mr.
Amol Vyas, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D.Rastogi, ASG with Mr. Akshay
Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Aneesh
Khandelwal, Adv. & Mr. Devesh Yadav,
Adv., Mr. Anand Sharma, Adv., Mr.
Ashish Kumar, Adv.

(4 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Judgment
Judgment Reserved on : 29th November, 2019
REPORTABLE
Date of Pronouncement : 24th January, 2020
By the Court:
The present order will decide two sets of cases i.e. Revision
Petitions filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C.
challenging the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the Special
Sessions Court, Jaipur (Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002) – Special Court (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur
Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby cognizance has been taken for
offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter shall be referred as
‘PMLA, 2002’) & arrest warrants have been issued to secure the
presence of the accused persons.
2. The other set of cases are Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging order of the Trial Court
wherein it has refused to convert arrest warrants of the petitioners
into bailable warrants by not exercising power under Section 70(2)
Cr.P.C.
(Revision Petitions)
3. This Court has taken note of the facts from the file of S.B.
Criminal Revision Petition No. 273/2019 (Shyam Sundar Singhvi
Vs. Union of India), which is treated as the lead case. The facts, in
nutshell, are that Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur on 19.09.2015
registered an FIR bearing No.251/2015 under Sections 120-B &
409 IPC and under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(1)(a)(c)(d), 13(2)
& 14 of Prevention of Corruption Act against Sanjay Sethi, Shyam
Sundar Singhvi-petitioner, Dheerendra Singh @ Chintu, Mohd.

(5 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
Sher Khan, Mohd. Rashid Sheikh, Dr. Ashok Singhvi, Pankaj Gehlot
& Pushkar Raj Ameta.
4. The main allegation in the FIR was with regard to misuse of
official position of the accused and to hatch criminal conspiracy to
cause loss of revenue to the State Exchequer. The prosecution also
alleged that acts of the accused amounted to criminal breach of
trust and they were involved in making huge money for their
personal gains.
5. The Anti Corruption Bureau (in short ‘ACB’) after registration
of FIR commenced investigation and filed charge-sheet on
04.11.2015 against the accused persons vide charge-sheet
No.276/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10,
12, 13(1)(a)(c)(d), 13(2) & 14 of Prevention of Corruption Act and
Section 120-B and 409 IPC.
6. The ACB in the charge-sheet found that the accused Sanjay
Sethi was engaged in the business of mining and he was a tout of
the Department of Mines and used to identify businessmen
engaged in the mining business anywhere in the State of
Rajasthan, with the help of officers of the Department of Mines.
The accused Sanjay Sethi, because of his close association with
the co-accused Dr. Ashok Singhvi, the then Principal Secretary,
Department of Mines, used to get instructions to close the mines
of the businessmen for one or another reason and thereafter he
used to contact the businessmen and after striking out the deal
with the officers of the Department of Mines, got their mines
reopened while imposing minor penalty in collusion with the
officers of the Department of Mines and in lieu of the said
transaction, he used to collect huge amount of money from the
businessmen.

(6 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
7. The ACB also found, after keeping the cell phone of Sanjay
Sethi on surveillance, that six mines of co-accused Mohd. Sher
Khan were closed on the ground of unsafe mining and other
irregularities, only for the purpose of extracting illegal gratification
from him for the official functionaries of the Department of Mines.
It was further revealed to the ACB that in order to get the mines
reopened, Mohd. Sher Khan contacted Sanjay Sethi and Pankaj
Gehlot, through their Charted Accountant Shyam Sundar Singhvi
for the purpose of reopening of mines. It was found by the ACB
that the bribe amount was fixed to the tune of Rs.2.50 Crores and
it was alleged that Sanjay Sethi had informed Dr. Ashok Singhvi
that deal was finalized at Rs.1.25 Crores and out of which Rs.1
Crore was for Dr. Ashok Singhvi and Rs.25 Lakhs was for others
and Dr. Ashok Singhvi had given his consent for the said deal. It
was further found by the ACB that Rs.2.60 crores was withdrawn
from different bank accounts and Mohd. Rashid Sheikh was to
handover the amount of Rs.2.55 crores and in pursuance thereof
Rs.2.55 crores were handed over by Shyam Sunder Singhvi to
Sanjay Sethi and his associate Dheerendra Singh @ Chintu on
16.09.2015. The ACB team visited the office of Shyam Sunder
Singhvi and seized the amount of Rs.2.50 crores from Sanjay
Sethi and Dheerendra Singh and Rs.5 lakhs was kept with Shyam
Sunder Singhvi, as commission, paid to Shyam Sunder in the deal.
8. The Directorate of Enforcement, after the charge-sheet being
filed by the ACB, registered an Enforcement Case Information
Report (ECIR) on 30.10.2015 against eight accused persons i.e.
Sanjay Sethi, Dr. Ashok Singhvi, Pankaj Gehlot, Pushkar Raj
Ameta, Shyam Sunder Singhvi, Mohd. Rashid Sheikh, Dheerendra
Singh @ Chintu and Tamanna Begum on the allegations of money

(7 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
laundering under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 which involved ‘proceeds of crime’
amounting to Rs.2.55 Crores, as the offences punishable under
Sections 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 & 13 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, were specified under Paragraph-1 & Paragraph-8
respectively of Part-A of the scheduled offences under PMLA,
2002.
9. On 16.07.2018, on the basis of the aforesaid allegations
against the aforesaid accused persons, the Assistant Director,
Directorate of Enforcement filed a prosecution complaint under
Section 45(1) of the PMLA, 2002 before the Special Court
(Communal Rights Cases), Jaipur.
10. The said prosecution complaint was registered as Criminal
Complaint No.10/2018 by the Special Court (Prevention of Money
Laundering Act). The criminal compliant was initially lodged in
English and thereafter a Hindi translation of the same was also
submitted by the Enforcement Directorate.
11. The Special Judge, after hearing submissions of Enforcement
Directorate, proceeded to take cognizance against the accused
persons including the petitioner for the offence under Section 4 of
the PMLA, 2002 and also ordered to secure the presence of all the
accused persons through execution of arrest warrants vide order
dated 21.01.2019.
12. All the petitioners have pleaded in their Revision Petitions
that the Special Court, has proceeded to take cognizance against
them for offence under Section 4 of PMLA, 2002 in disregard of
the fact that essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3
of PMLA, 2002 defining the offence of money laundering, do not
stand disclosed even prima-facie. The petitioners have pleaded

(8 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
that Special Judge further perpetuated gross abuse of process of
court by directly issuing arrest warrants to secure the presence of
the accused persons.
13. Mr.Vivek Bajwa, learned counsel appearing for the accused
Shyam Sunder Singh has made following submissions:-
13.1 The impugned order of taking cognizance has been
passed in a mechanical manner without applying due
judicious mind as the punitive ingredients of the offence
under Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 are not spelt out in the
present case, on the bare perusal of the criminal complaint
filed by the Enforcement Directorate.
13.2 The offence of money laundering, as defined under
Section 3 & penalized under Section 4 of PMLA, 2002,
requires that proceeds of crime are concealed or possessed
or acquired or used for the purpose of projecting or claiming
it to be untainted property. The proceeds of crime is a
property which is derived directly or indirectly by a person as
a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.
Counsel argued that the entire case of the Enforcement
Directorate is founded on the version given out by the ACB in
their charge-sheet for the scheduled offence and the charge-
sheet submitted by the ACB does not make out a case under
Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. The facts of the case did not
reflect that even the illegal gratification was accepted or
obtained by any of the public servants, much less after
obtaining the same, they had projected or claimed the same
to be untainted property.

(9 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
13.3 The basic requirement of committing offence under
Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 was not fulfilled as there has to be
placement, layering and integration of proceeds of crime.
13.4 The amendments in Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 are
punitive in nature and as such they are prospective.
13.5 The accused persons have participated during enquiry
and no arrest was demanded at any point of time and as
such while taking cognizance of the offences, arrest warrants
ought not to have been issued.
14. Mr.A.K.Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
accused Dr.Ashok Singhvi has made following submissions:-
14.1 There is no allegation against the petitioner and in
absence of any specific allegation of committing offence
under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, the cognizance order is
vitiated.
14.2 The entire charge-sheet, filed under the provisions of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the complaint filed
under the provisions of PMLA, 2002 nowhere show demand
or receipt of any money by the petitioner and even there is
no attempt on the part of the petitioner to connect him with
the commission of offence under Section 3 of the PMLA,
2002.
14.3 The proceeds of crime, as defined under Section 2(1)
(u) of the PMLA, 2002 and explanation added to the said
definition, nowhere establishes that the petitioner had any
role in receiving the proceeds of crime.
15. Mr.S.S.Hora, learned counsel appearing for the accused
Sanjay Sethi has made following submissions:-

(10 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
15.1 The ingredients of Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 have not
been even prima-facie established against the petitioners as
there has been no placement, layering and integration of
proceeds of crime.
15.2 The proceeds of crime were converted in Fixed Deposits
and the same have been deposited in the Court and as such
it cannot be said that any offence has been committed.
16. Mr.Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the accused Tamanna Begum has made following submissions:-
16.1 The petitioner Tamanna Begum is not involved in
commission of any crime. The application under Section 451
Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner Tamanna Begum being wife
of Mohd. Sher Khan for return of money which was seized for
committing the alleged scheduled offence.
16.2 When the husband of the petitioner Mohd. Sher Khan
cannot be punished for the scheduled offence, the petitioner
Tamanna Begum cannot be made accused under the
provisions of PMLA, 2002.
16.3 There has been no allegation of any kind of activity
undertaken by the petitioner Tamanna Begum, which can
become an offence either under the PMLA, 2002 or the
Prevention of Corruption Act. Counsel placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court dated
13.03.2017 in the case of Obulapuram Mining Co.Pvt.Ltd.
& Ors. Vs. Jt.Director, Directorate of Enforcement &
Ors. [Writ Petition Nos.5962, 11442 & 11440-11441 of
2016]; judgment passed by the Jharkhand High Court dated
19.02.2013 in the case of Binod Kumar Sinha @ Binod
Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand [Writ Petition (Crl.)

(11 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
No.257/2012 with Crl.Rev.No.920/2012 &
Crl.Rev.No.699/2011]; judgment passed by the
coordinate Bench of this Court dated 23.04.2019 passed in
the case of Kanhaiyalal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr. [S.B.Crl.Misc.Petition No.2381/2019].
17. Mr.Peush Nag & Mr.Suresh Kumar Sahni, learned counsel
appearing for the other accused petitioners have also reiterated
the same submissions.
18. Per contra, Mr.R.D. Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor
General, has submitted that this case has a chequered history and
the petitioners have indulged themselves in several rounds of
luxurious litigation because of their affluent economic condition.
Learned counsel submitted that Dr.Ashok Singhvi had earlier filed
S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.2805/2015 before the Principal Seat
of this Court at Jodhpur for quashing of the FIR No.251/2015
registered at Police Station ACB, Jaipur under the Prevention of
Corruption Act and also challenged the chargesheet No.276/2015
and the entire proceedings in the case pending before the
Sessions Judge (Anti Corruption), Udaipur. The said Criminal Misc.
Petition was dismissed by the Principal Seat of this Court at
Jodhpur vide order dated 23.03.2018. Thereafter, Dr.Ashok
Singhvi challenged the order dated 23.03.2018 before the Apex
Court in SLP (Criminal) No.7267/2018 and the said SLP came to
be dismissed as withdrawn on 24.09.2018.
19. Mr.Rastogi submitted that the petitioners initially filed
revision petitions before this Court challenging the order of
cognizance seeking conversion of arrest warrants into bailable
warrants and when no order was passed by this Court on the
revision petitions for converting arrest warrants into bailable

(12 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
warrants, the petitioners moved applications under Section 70(2)
Cr.P.C. before the learned PMLA Court to convert arrest warrants
into bailable warrants and since there prayer has been rejected by
the learned PMLA Court, they have filed separate criminal misc.
petitions for conversion of their arrest warrants into bailable
warrants.
20. Counsel further submitted that when the cases were listed
before the learned PMLA Court, where files of predicate offences
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, were also transferred, the
accused persons moved application for seeking exemption from
personal appearance on the ground of illness and on the other
hand, the arrest warrants issued by the Trial Court under the
PMLA, 2002 remained unexecuted for months together, the Trial
Court forfeited the bail bonds in offences under the Prevention of
Corruption Act and the bail was cancelled on 21.09.2019 and still
the accused persons are evading their appearance before the
Court.
21. Counsel has further submitted that even two accused
persons namely Mohd. Rashid Sheikh and Sanjay Sethi moved bail
application but the Trial Court dismissed their application seeking
anticipatory bail and as such these petitioners want the relief from
this Court which has been denied to them by the Trial Court.
22. Mr.Rastogi has raised following submissions before this
court:-
22.1 Power under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. can be
exercised only in exceptional cases and the court is primarily
to see the contents of the complaint alone and no other
material is to be considered.

(13 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
22.2 The remedy available under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not
like an appeal and the High Court should not act as an
investigating agency in order to exercise powers like an
appellate court.
22.3 The conduct of the accused persons is highly
objectionable and they do not deserve any relief from this
Court.
22.4 The economic offences stand on a different footing and
such offences constitute a separate class and they need to
be visited with a different approach.
22.5 A person can be prosecuted for an offence of money
laundering even if he is not guilty of the scheduled offences
and the prosecution can be launched only for the offence of
money laundering.
22.6 The Special Court has powers under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
to call the accused persons through arrest warrants and in
the present matter, the Trial Court has not exceeded or acted
beyond its jurisdiction.
23. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance perused the material available on record.
24. This Court is required to consider the scope of Sections 397
& 401 Cr.P.C. in respect of the order of taking cognizance passed
by the trial court.
25. This court while hearing revision petitions under Sections
397 and 401 Cr.P.C. cannot sit as an appellate Court and re-
appreciate the evidence unless the judgment of the trial court
suffers from perversity. The material, which is placed before the
Magistrate, for taking cognizance, leads to a situation where the
Magistrate finds sufficient grounds for proceeding in the case. The

(14 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
satisfaction of the Magistrate has to be based on the material
placed before him.
26. This court finds that in the present facts of the case, the trial
court has taken into account the complaint which was filed against
the accused persons and after going through the various
statements and documents produced by the prosecution, the
Sessions Judge found that there are sufficient grounds for taking
cognizance against the accused persons and as such after
considering contents of the complaint and material, the order of
cognizance has been passed.
27. The Apex Court has time and again laid down the parameters
where High Court can examine the validity of order of cognizance.
The Apex Court has consistently laid down that the power of
revision can only be exercised in exceptional cases and if criminal
proceedings have been initiated illegally, vexatiously or without
jurisdiction, then such power can be exercised by the High Court.
28. This court further finds that the Apex Court has also laid
down the law that power of revision has to be exercised by the
High Court sparingly with circumspection and in rarest of rare
case. The Apex Court has also time and again considered the
scope of power of the High Court and such power of High Court is
not for considering or going into the merits and demerits of the
case at the time of taking cognizance. This court finds that in
exercise of revisional power, High Court should not interfere only
because it forms a different opinion on the same material. The
High Court, unless finds that the order impugned is perverse on
face of it and the court below did not exercise its jurisdiction or
there is an illegality or irregularity on the face of order impugned,
should not interfere with the order passed by the court below

(15 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
while exercising powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. The
satisfaction of the court taking cognizance, if based on the
material placed before it, discloses that cognizance of an offence is
required to be taken, the said order will not be termed as a
perverse order.
29. This court finds that initially ACB had registered FIR and later
on filed charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences
of Prevention of Corruption Act. The Directorate of Enforcement
thereafter registered an Enforcement Case Information Report
(ECIR) against the accused persons on the allegations of money
laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002 involving
proceeds of crime and on the basis of this said allegations, the
Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement later on filed
prosecution complaint under Section 45(1) of the PMLA, 2002.
This court finds that the trial court, after analyzing the material
placed before it, found that the allegations levelled against the
accused persons require that cognizance should be taken of the
offences and further the case needs to be tried by holding a
regular trial.
30. The submission of the learned senior counsel on behalf of
petitioners that the basic ingredients of offences under Section 3
of the PMLA, 2002 are not made out in the present case and as
such, this Court is required to see even prima facie case is not
made out against the accused persons, this court finds that
analyzing the evidence and giving finding with respect to merits of
the matter at the present stage, will not be an appropriate stage
to consider merits of the case. The Investigating Agency has
considered the various statements given by different persons and
also collected the evidence to connect the accused persons with

(16 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
the commission of offence under the PMLA, 2002 and right to
defend an accused person is available during the trial and
interference at the initial stage, after taking cognizance, will not
be an appropriate exercise of power by the High Court at this
stage.
31. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the entire case of Enforcement Directorate is founded on the
version given out by the ACB in their chargesheet for the
scheduled offences and as such no case is made out under Section
3 of the PMLA, 2002, this Court finds that the investigation by the
authorities, statement recorded and material collected, if prima
facie establish that proceeds of crime are projected to be
untainted property, in any manner, no fault can be found with the
order of taking cognizance by the competent court.
32. This court finds that the Legislature has enacted the PMLA,
2002 with object to prevent money-laundering and connected
activities, as it posed a serious threat not only to the financial
systems but also to the integrity and sovereignty of the Country.
This court finds that if offence of money laundering, as defined in
Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, is to be alleged against the accused
persons, the Investigating Agency is required to look into the basic
ingredients for commission of such offence. The very purpose of
the PMLA, 2002 is to nab the activities, which ultimately result
into money laundering.
33. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that in
absence of basic requirement of Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 like
placement, layering and integration of proceeds of crime, no
offence is made out, this court finds that the words "placement,
layering and integration of proceeds of crime" are in fact

(17 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
interpretation in a judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the
case of M/s.Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2016 (1) High Court
Cases (Del) 265. The said judgment passed by the Delhi High
Court and observation made therein has been stayed by the
Division Bench in LPA No.144/2016 [Directorate of Enforcement
Vs. M/s. Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt. Ltd.] vide order dated
30.11.2016 while observing as follows:-
"We have observed that while allowing the writ petition by

the order under appeal, certain findings were recorded by
the learned Single Judge with regard to the enforcement of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on
interpretation of the provisions of the said Act.
We make it clear that the findings so recorded by the learned

Single Judge shall not be construed as conclusive and
binding precedent until further orders."
34. This court even while going through the complaint under
Section 45(1) of the PMLA, 2002 finds that the Investigating
Agency has also mentioned that the seized amount was tried to be
layered and integrated being proceeds of crime in main economy
and further efforts were made to integrate the proceeds of crime
with the mainstream economy by showing the sale proceeds of
some mines of Umar village and claimed the same to be untainted
property. This court without making any comments on the findings
recorded by the Investigating Agency, however, finds that the
objection with regard to placement, layering and integration of
proceeds of crime, have been mentioned by the prosecuting
agency.
35. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
the court below has not taken into account the requirement of
basic ingredients for commission of offence under Section 3 of the

(18 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
PMLA, 2002 and same being not spelt out even from the bare
perusal of the criminal complaint filed by the Enforcement
Directorate, this court, after considering the various provisions
contained in PMLA, 2002 with respect to "proceeds of crime" as
defined under Section 2(u), "property" as defined under Section
2(v) and Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, finds that for making out
an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, the court is
required to consider that any person who involves himself directly
or indirectly with any process or activity connected with the
proceeds of crime and projects the same to be untainted money,
can very well be prosecuted under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002.
The court below, if after considering the allegations against the
petitioners and after analysing the material placed before it, has
come to the conclusion that cognizance is required to be taken,
and no fault can be found with such an order.
36. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that
the amendment in Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 by adding
explanation to it, has been brought by way of Finance Act No.2 of
2019 w.e.f. 01.08.2019 and as such the amendment being
declaratory in nature and the provision been punitive in nature,
has to be applied with prospective effect.
37. Mr.Bajwa, learned counsel submitted that considering the
definition of “offence of money laundering” as per Section 3 of the
PMLA, 2002, no offence, against the accused petitioners, is made
out as the proceeds of crime including its concealment,
possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming as
tainted property, was not prima facie proved against the accused
petitioners. Counsel submitted that the subsequent explanation
added by way of amendment has defined the activities like

(19 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
concealment or possession or acquisition or use or claiming or
projecting as untainted property, by considering any of such
activity to be committing, an offence. Counsel has argued that
prior to addition of explanation, all the ingredients, defining
money laundering, were required to be alleged for charging a
person for commission of offence under Section 3 of the PMLA,
2002 and only by virtue of explanation, specifying any of the
activities, offence can be committed by a person.
38. Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of Popular Muthiah Vs. State
represented by Inspector of Police reported in JT 2006 (6)
SC 332 and Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. UOI & Ors. reported
in 2017 (13) Scale 6098 and a judgment of this court dated
09.05.2018 passed in the case of Pushya Mitra Singh Deo &
Anr. Vs. UOI [S.B.Crl.Misc. Petition No.2097/2018].
39. Mr.R.D.Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General, on the
contrary, has argued that the amendment brought by the Finance
Act, 2019 was merely clarificatory and being clarificatory in
nature, the same has to be retrospective, as the principal Act was
not amended but only the intent of the Legislature was clarified
which was already there in the principal Act. Mr.Rastogi has placed
reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi Vs.
Vatika Township Pvt.Ltd. reported in (2015) 1 SCC 1 and the
judgment passed by Division Bench of the Madras High Court
dated 04.10.2019 in the case of M/s.VGN developers Pvt.Ltd.
Vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
(Crl.O.P.No. 9796/2019 and Crl.M.P.No.5129/2019).

(20 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
40. This court before dealing with the issue in hand, would like to
reproduce the original Section 3 of the PMLA Act, 2002 and
explanation added, by way of amendment, as follows:-
"3. Offence of money-Laundering.-Whosoever directly or

indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or
knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or
activity connected proceeds of crime including its
concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting
or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence
of money-laundering.
Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby

clarified that,—
(i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering
if such person is found to have directly or indirectly
attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly
is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the
following processes or activities connected with proceeds
of crime, namely:—
(a) concealment; or
(b) possession; or
(c) acquisition; or
(d) use; or
(e) projecting as untainted property; or
(f) claiming as untainted property,
in any manner whatsoever;
(ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of

crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a
person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of
crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or
use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as
untainted property in any manner whatsoever."
41. This court finds that reading of Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002
reveals that the offence of money laundering is an offence
regarding indulging in any process or activity connected with
proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession,
acquisition or use and further projecting and claiming the same to
be untainted property. The said definition given in Section 3 of the
PMLA, 2002 was later on clarified by adding explanation and as
such it does not change the basic ingredients which were required
to be alleged against a person for committing an offence under

(21 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. The clarification which has been
added in fact was for removal of doubts, may be due to somewhat
ambiguous definition inserted in the main provision of Section 3 of
the PMLA, 2002. Thus, the Legislature if by way of amendment
adds explanation for removal of doubts, it cannot be said that a
punitive provision has been inserted in the definition and the same
has to be given effect from a prospective date. This court further
finds that explanation which is added by way of amendment may
not be of any assistance to the accused petitioners and as far as
allegations of committing offence against the accused petitioners
under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 are concerned, the prosecution
has leveled allegations of money laundering against the accused
petitioners, as per the definition given under Section 3 of the
PMLA, 2002.
42. The submission of the learned senior counsel Mr.A.K.Sharma
that allegation against the accused petitioner-Ashok Singhvi
nowhere connects him with commission of offence under Section 3
of the PMLA, 2002 or as per the explanation provided under
Section 2(1)(u), this court finds that the prosecution has leveled
allegations against all the accused petitioners that proceeds of
crime, which were obtained from the scheduled offences, are
involved and accused persons by way of their acts have committed
offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 and receiving proceeds
of crime itself may not be the relevant consideration for forming
the opinion of involvement of accused in commission of crime.
43. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Hora
that since proceeds of crime were converted into fixed deposits, it
cannot be said that any offence has been committed under the
PMLA, 2002, this court has noted the said argument to be

(22 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
rejected. The proceeds of crime, if later on, after recovery made
by the police, have been converted into fixed deposits, the same
can amount to an offence having been committed under Section 3
of the PMLA, 2002.
44. The submission of learned Senior Advocate Mr.Rajendra Prasad
that the petitioner Tamanna Begum cannot be punished for the
scheduled offences and as such she cannot be made accused
under the provisions of PMLA, 2002 and her no activity can
become an offence either under the PMLA, 2002 or under the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, this court finds that for
the purpose of Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002, a person
accused under the PMLA, 2002 may not have committed the
scheduled offence and such person can be prosecuted for the
offence of money laundering even if such person is not guilty of
the scheduled offences.
45. Mr.R.D.Rastogi. learned Additional Solicitor General has placed
reliance on a judgment passed by the Division Bench of the
Gujarat High Court in Rakesh Manekchand Kothari Vs. UOI
[Special Criminal Application (Direction) No.4496/2014]
dated 16.01.2015 and on the strength of the said judgment
submitted that PMLA, 2002 applies to the person who is connected
with the criminal activity relating to the scheduled offences but
may not be an offender of the scheduled offences.
46. This court finds that the court below after considering the law
on the subject has come to the conclusion that the petitioner
Tamanna Begum is also involved in commission of offence under
Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 and as such this court does not find
any reason to take a different view on the issue of involvement of
the petitioner Tamanna Begum in the present case.

(23 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
47. This court finds that position of law which emerges is that
offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 is
an independent offence and money laundering is a stand alone
offence under the PMLA, 2002.
48. Accordingly, this court finds that the order passed by the court
below of taking cognizance dated 21.01.2019 does not require any
interference by this court and all the revision petitions are
dismissed.
Misc. Petition (Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
49. The petitioners, in this set of cases, have filed misc. petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. feeling aggrieved due to issuance of
arrest warrants against them, after order of taking cognizance was
passed by the court below. The petitioners have sought prayer
from this court that arrest warrants, issued against them, be
converted into bailable warrants and power given under Section
70(2) Cr.P.C. may be exercised by this court. All the petitioners
had approached the Sessions Court for converting non-bailable
warrants into bailable warrants, however, such prayer was
declined by the court below by passing the orders on following
different dates:-
a. Crl.Misc.Petition No.2872/2019 dated 30.03.2019
b. Crl.Misc.Petition No.4770/2019 dated 11.04.2019
c. Crl.Misc.Petition No.4771/2019 dated 11.04.2019
d. Crl.Misc.Petition No.5426/2019 dated 17.08.2019
e. Crl.Misc.Petition No.5427/2019 dated 17.08.2019
f. Crl.Misc.Petition No.5430/2019 dated 04.04.2019
g. Crl.Misc.Petition No.5524/2019 dated 19.08.2019
50. Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the court
below has committed illegality in rejecting the prayer of converting

(24 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
non-bailable warrants into bailable warrants and it ought to have
exercised its power under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. Counsel for the
petitioners argued that the court below has assigned wrong
reasons for not entertaining the applications of the petitioners for
converting the non-bailable warrants into bailable warrants by
treating the said power to be a review power of the criminal court
and the same not being available to the court below, as such this
court needs to set aside such orders passed by the court below.
51. Counsel for the petitioners have argued that no separate
findings have been given by the court below while rejecting their
applications and power to convert non-bailable warrants into
bailable warrants is an independent power of the competent
Criminal Court and such court was not denuded of its power to
consider the case of the petitioners for issuance of bailable
warrants. Counsel for the petitioners have argued that the
petitioners had appeared before the Enforcement Directorate,
after they were called for recording the statement and at no point
of time the Investigating Agency, sought to arrest the petitioners
and in view of full cooperation extended by the petitioners, their
appearance in the court by way of non-bailable warrants, after
arresting them was not justified in the facts of the case.
52. Counsel for the petitioners have argued that statement of the
petitioners were recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 and
whatever information/document was required by the prosecuting
Agency, the same exercise having been undertaken, there remains
no reason to summon the petitioners by way of non-bailable
warrants.
53. Counsel for the petitioners have argued that the Apex Court
time and again has laid down the law that resort to non-bailable

(25 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
warrant, at the first instance without availing other methods to
secure/summon the accused by way of summon and bailable
warrant, should not be adopted by the courts. Counsel argued that
the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan
Goswami Vs. State of Uttranchal reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1
still holds the field and the accused petitioners ought not to have
been summoned by way of arrest warrants. Counsel placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 11.10.2017 passed in
Surendra Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Ms.Annupama Saxena
[S.B.Crl.Misc. Petition No.5068/2017] and judgment of this
Court dated 17.12.2018 passed in Pushpendra Agrawal Vs.
Mukesh Kumar Meena [S.B.Crl.Misc. Petition
No.7892/2018].
54. Counsel for the petitioners have argued that even in the
complaint, which was filed by the Enforcement Directorate under
section 45(1) of the PMLA,2002, it was nowhere prayed for issuing
non-bailable warrants and on the contrary, specific prayer was
made only to take cognizance and issue process of trial for
punishment of the accused persons and further prayer was also
made for confiscation of the properties, involved in the money
laundering or which was used for the commission of offence of
money laundering.
55. Per contra, Mr.Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General has
submitted that the court below has rightly dismissed the
applications filed by the petitioners under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C.
after applying its mind to the facts of the present case and has
further assigned cogent reasons for not summoning the accused
petitioners by way of bailable warrants. Counsel argued that a
bare reading of the order passed by the court below nowhere

(26 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
reflects that relevant considerations were not kept in mind and
further it is not only refusal to exercise power by terming the
same as review power but also independent and separate
reasonings have been given for not allowing the prayer of the
accused petitioners to convert their non-bailable warrants into
bailable warrants.
56. Mr.Rastogi has submitted that the court below has kept in
mind the parameters for issuing non-bailable warrants in the
present case. The entire facts of the case, nature of allegation,
severity of punishment and impact of offence on the society as a
whole, have been kept in mind while passing the impugned orders
refusing to convert the non-bailable warrants into bailable
warrants. Mr.Rastogi has further submitted that the court below
has exercised power under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and it has
discretion to call all the accused persons through non-bailable
warrants and as such court below has rightly exercised its
jurisdiction. Counsel argued that the High Court may not exercise
its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if there is a wrong
exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. Counsel has further
argued that the prayer for converting non-bailable warrants into
bailable warrants is like granting anticipatory bail and placing
reliance on the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) by the
petitioners is totally misplaced. Counsel further argued that after
rejection of their applications, filed under section 70(2) Cr.P.C. the
accused persons may have different remedy like seeking regular
bail before the trial court and granting relief of bail under section
482 Cr.P.C., is not warranted.
57. This court deems it proper to refer the relevant paragraphs of
the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Inder Mohan

(27 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
Goswami Vs. State of Uttranchal reported in (2007) 12 SCC
1, which are as follows :-
"6. According to the appellants, time was the essence of the

contract and respondent no.3 had failed to pay the balance
amount by Rs.10,10,650/-. The Sabha had sent a legal
notice dated 3.4.1999 (first legal notice) to respondent no.3
to fulfill his contractual obligations under the sale agreement
and informing that if he failed to do so, the agreement to sell
would stand cancelled and the amount paid as earnest
money would be forfeited. In reply to the said notice,
respondent no.3 vide his reply dated 5.5.1999 stated that he
had not defaulted in payment of the remaining amount. He
stated in the reply that as per the agreement the land had to
be measured and that he was ready to pay the balance
amount once that was done.
7. Pt. Mohan Lal Sharma, the President of the Sabha, expired
on 30.8.1999. On 5.1.2000, both the parties i.e. the
representative of the Sabha and the representatives of M/s
Ahuja Builders met at the site of the disputed land in the
presence of Patwari (Revenue Official). The land of old
Khasra No.140 and new Khasra Nos.61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66,
67, 68 and part of 89, 90 was measured by the Patwari. The
balance land, after adjusting the land given in lieu of
construction of the Ghat, came out to be 11.19 Bighas. The
total sale consideration for this land worked out to be
Rs.15,10,650/-. Respondent no.3 had already paid
Rs.4,00,000/- as earnest money out of this amount. He had
paid a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 21.3.1997. On the
request of respondent no.3, the Sabha reduced the amount
owed of Rs.1,50,000/- to him in view of the existence of a
passage on the said land. Out of the balance of
Rs.8,60,650/-, a further concession of Rs.60,650/- was given
to Respondent no.3. He thus had to pay the balance amount
of Rs.8,00,000/-. The said measurement sheet was endorsed
by respondent nos.3 and 4 and the representatives of the
Sabha on 19.3.2000.
8. The general power of attorney executed by late Mohan Lal
Sharma, President of the Sabha, had ceased to be in effect
after his death. Therefore, the need of a fresh power of
attorney was felt and respondent no.3 desired that the fresh
Power of Attorney be executed in the name of his son,
Suresh Ahuja (respondent no.4 herein) for the very same
13.5 Bighas of land in regard to which earlier Power of
Attorney dated 13.12.1996 had been given. Accordingly,
General Secretary of the Sabha, appellant no.1 herein,
executed a fresh General Power of Attorney on 15.1.2000 in
respect of 13.5 Bighas of land situated in part of Old Khasra
No.140 (new Khasra Nos. 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and
part of 89, 90) in Village Haripur Kalan, Rishikesh, Dehradun,
in favour of Suresh Ahuja (respondent no.4) as per the
request of respondent no.3.

(28 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
12. Having committed breach of his contractual obligations,

respondent no.3 filed a criminal complaint to the SHO of
Raiwala, Rishikesh police station on 23.4.2003 against the
appellants and three other persons alleging that he had been
cheated by the appellants in connivance with other persons
by selling a portion of his land to a third party and by
cancelling the General Power of Attorney. After examining
the matter, the SHO arrived at the conclusion that no
cognizable offence had been committed and the dispute in
question was of civil nature for which the civil remedy is
available in law.
13. Respondent no.3 filed another complaint on the same
day, i.e. 23.4.2003, to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Dehradun and got the FIR registered against the appellant
and three other persons. The allegation of respondent no.3
was that the appellants in connivance with other persons had
sold the part of land situated in Old Khasra No.140 and new
Khasra No.89 which had been transferred to them by way of
General Power of Attorney. The FIR was registered on
23.4.2003 as Case No.26 of 2003 under sections 420, 467
and 120-B IPC.
14. It may be pertinent to mention that on 27.5.2003,
respondent no.3 filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge
(Senior Division) against the Sabha bearing Original Suit
No.302 of 2003 titled Himmat Rai Ahuja v. Sanatan Dharam
Pratinidhi Sabha. In this suit, respondent no.3 prayed for
cancellation of sale deed executed by the Sabha in favour of
Sunil Kumar and for permanent injunction against the
appellants herein restraining them from interfering in his
alleged property. Thus, the issues relating to ascertaining the
right, title of the land in dispute and also the issue of correct
demarcation of land in Khasra No.140 are pending
adjudication in a competent civil court.
16. Aggrieved by the filing of the false and incorrect charge-
sheet in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh in
Criminal Case No.1728 of 2003 titled State v. Inder Mohan
Goswami & Others, the appellants filed a Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.248 of 2003 in the High Court
of Uttaranchal at Nainital under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing the proceedings against them. The High Court was
pleased to pass the interim order on 22.10.2003 staying
further proceedings. A reply was filed on behalf of the State
by Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, SHO, Raiwala Police Station,
in which two points were raised:
1. That, appellant no.1 has wrongly cancelled the General
Power of Attorney given to respondent no.4; and
2. That, appellant no.1 has wrongly and illegally executed
the sale deed of land comprising in Khasra No.140 (New
Khasra Nos.61 to 68, 89 and 90) without returning the
earnest money of respondent Nos.3 and 4.
17. The High Court by order dated 16.7.2004 dismissed the
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellants on

(29 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
the ground that the records show that the allegations in the
FIR constitute an offence as alleged by the complainant. The
said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
22. The veracity of the facts alleged by the appellants and
the respondents can only be ascertained on the basis of
evidence and documents by a civil court of competent
jurisdiction. The dispute in question is purely of civil nature
and respondent no.3 has already instituted a civil suit in the
court of Civil Judge. In the facts and circumstances of this
case, initiating criminal proceedings by the respondents
against the appellants is clearly an abuse of the process of
the court.
46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not
used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private
vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the
accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of
the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay
down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide has to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is
justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Statute
itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled
legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
47. Before parting with this appeal, we would like to discuss
an issue which is of great public importance, i.e., how and
when warrants should be issued by the Court? It has come
to our notice that in many cases that bailable and non-
bailable warrants are issued casually and mechanically. In
the instant case, the court without properly comprehending
the nature of controversy involved and without exhausting
the available remedies issued non-bailable warrants.
Personal liberty and the interest of the State
50. Civilized countries have recognized that liberty is the
most precious of all the human rights. The American
Declaration of Independence 1776, French Declaration of the
Rights of Men and the Citizen 1789, Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and
Political Rights, 1966 all speak with one voice - liberty is the
natural and inalienable right of every human being. Similarly,
Article 21 of our Constitution proclaims that no one shall be
deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by law.
51. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves
interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment
means deprivation of the most precious right of an
individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely careful
before issuing non-bailable warrants.
52. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the
interest of the society in maintaining law and order. Both are
extremely important for the survival of a civilized society.
Sometimes in the larger interest of the Public and the State

(30 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
it becomes absolutely imperative to curtail freedom of an

individual for a certain period, only then the non-bailable
warrants should be issued.
When non-bailable warrants should be issued
53. Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person
to court when summons of bailable warrants would be
unlikely to have the desired result. This could be when:
● it is reasonable to believe that the person will not
voluntarily appear in court; or
● the police authorities are unable to find the person to
serve him with a summon; or
● it is considered that the person could harm someone if
not placed into custody immediately.
54. As far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a
summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused
in the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should be
preferred. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable
should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and
complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious
consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of
warrants. The court must very carefully examine whether the
Criminal Complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique
motive.
55. In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court should
direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the
complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons,
the court, in the second instance should issue bailable-
warrant. In the third instance, when the court is fully
satisfied that the accused is avoiding the court’s proceeding
intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailable
warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount,
therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance
to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants.
56. The power being discretionary must be exercised
judiciously with extreme care and caution. The court should
properly balance both personal liberty and societal interest
before issuing warrants. There cannot be any straight-jacket
formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless
an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a
heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or
destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law,
issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided.
57. The Court should try to maintain proper balance between
individual liberty and the interest of the public and the State
while issuing non-bailable warrant."
58. In the humble opinion of this court, the Apex Court on
analysing the facts of the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra)
came to the conclusion that the averments made in the FIR do not

(31 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
make out a case for prosecution under Section 420 and 467 IPC.
The Apex Court held that criminal prosecution should not be used
as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or
with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused. The Apex Court
further held that it was neither possible nor desirable to lay down
an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court further held
that though powers are very wide under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but
they are to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution. The
Apex Court, while considering the issue of personal liberty and the
interest of the State and in what manner non-bailable warrants
should be issued to bring a person to the court when summons or
bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result,
held that the court has to properly balance both personal liberty
and societal interest before issuing warrants and there cannot be
any straitjacket formula for issuance of warrants.
59. This court finds that time and again the Apex Court has laid
down the law that economic offences are required to be dealt with
strict approach as these offences affect the economy of the whole
Nation and economic offences are committed with a pre-meditated
design. This court finds that the economic offences stand on a
different footing and they constituent a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach. The economic offences have
deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds
and thus, need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave
offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and
thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the
country. The Apex Court in the case of Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy
Vs. CBI reported in (2013) 7 SSC 439 has considered the nature

(32 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
of economic offences and the relevant portion of the judgment is
quoted hereunder:-
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to

be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and
involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed
seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the
economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing
serious threat to the financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support
thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will
entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing
the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public/State and other similar
considerations."
60. The Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal
Jitamalji Porwal and Anr. reported in (1987) 2 SSC 364 has
considered the nature of economic offences and has held as
under:-
"5. ........The entire Community is aggrieved if the economic

offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought
to books. A murder may be committed in the heat of
moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence
is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with
an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to
the Community. A disregard for the interest of the
Community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting
the trust and faith of the Community in the system to
administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of
criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes
with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the
National Economy and National Interest. The High Court was
therefore altogether unjustified in rejecting the application
made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor invoking the
powers of the Court under Section 391 of the CrPC. We are
of the opinion that the application should have been granted
in the facts and circumstances of the case with the end in
view to do full and true justice. The application made by the
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is therefore granted. The
High Court will issue appropriate directions for the recording
of the evidence to prove the report of the Mint Master
under Section 391 Cr.P.C. when the matter goes back to High

(33 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
Court and is listed for directions. The appeal is therefore

allowed. The order of acquittal is set aside. The matter is
remitted to the High Court for proceeding further in
accordance with law in the light of the abovesaid directions."
61. This court finds that the co-ordinate Bench of this court in
S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.474/2010 (Pooran Singh and
Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on 25.05.2010 has
considered the issue in respect of warrant of arrest issued against
the accused persons. The coordinate Bench has also considered
the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Inder
Mohan Goswami (supra) and found that status of the accused is
one of the considerations that has to be taken into account and
those people who are supposed to uphold the law and if they
violate the law such persons should also realize the consequences
of violating the law.
62. This court finds that the court below has taken into account
the nature of allegations levelled against the accused petitioners,
role of accused petitioners, impact of the alleged offences on the
society and the scope of interference in economic matters by
giving undue leverage to the accused petitioners affecting the
interest of the society and has accordingly rejected the prayer of
the petitioners in rightful manner. The offences under PMLA, 2002
are cognizance and non-bailable, as per Section 45 of the Act.
63. This court does not find any error in the orders passed by the
court below and accordingly all the petitions are dismissed. This
court makes it clear that what has been observed by this court is
only for the purpose of disposal of the present revision petitions
and misc. petitions and any observation made, shall either may
not prejudice rights of the parties and the trial court may also not
be influenced/inhibited, by the observations made by this court

(34 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019]
and the trial court shall proceed independently in accordance with
the law. No cost.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Solanki DS, PS
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 273/2019

(Downloaded on 30/03/2020 at 04:23:06 PM)

Enforcement Directorate, Through Its Assistant Director

(Downloaded on 30/03/2020 at 04:23:06 PM)

Union Of India, Through Shri Uma Nand Vijay, Assistant Director,

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. assisted by

(Downloaded on 30/03/2020 at 04:23:06 PM)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

challenging the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the Special

Sessions Court, Jaipur (Prevention of Money Laundering Act,

2002) – Special Court (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur

Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby cognizance has been taken for

offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter shall be referred as

presence of the accused persons.

2. The other set of cases are Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions

wherein it has refused to convert arrest warrants of the petitioners

into bailable warrants by not exercising power under Section 70(2)

Criminal Revision Petition No. 273/2019 (Shyam Sundar Singhvi

nutshell, are that Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur on 19.09.2015

registered an FIR bearing No.251/2015 under Sections 120-B &

409 IPC and under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(1)(a)(c)(d), 13(2)

& 14 of Prevention of Corruption Act against Sanjay Sethi, Shyam

Sundar Singhvi-petitioner, Dheerendra Singh @ Chintu, Mohd.

(Downloaded on 30/03/2020 at 04:23:06 PM)

& Pushkar Raj Ameta.

4. The main allegation in the FIR was with regard to misuse of

official position of the accused and to hatch criminal conspiracy to

cause loss of revenue to the State Exchequer. The prosecution also

alleged that acts of the accused amounted to criminal breach of

5. The Anti Corruption Bureau (in short ‘ACB’) after registration

of FIR commenced investigation and filed charge-sheet on

04.11.2015 against the accused persons vide charge-sheet

No.276/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10,

12, 13(1)(a)(c)(d), 13(2) & 14 of Prevention of Corruption Act and

Section 120-B and 409 IPC.

6. The ACB in the charge-sheet found that the accused Sanjay

Sethi was engaged in the business of mining and he was a tout of

the Department of Mines and used to identify businessmen

engaged in the mining business anywhere in the State of

Rajasthan, with the help of officers of the Department of Mines.

The accused Sanjay Sethi, because of his close association with

the co-accused Dr. Ashok Singhvi, the then Principal Secretary,

Department of Mines, used to get instructions to close the mines

of the businessmen for one or another reason and thereafter he

with the officers of the Department of Mines, got their mines

reopened while imposing minor penalty in collusion with the

officers of the Department of Mines and in lieu of the said

transaction, he used to collect huge amount of money from the

(Downloaded on 30/03/2020 at 04:23:06 PM)

Sethi on surveillance, that six mines of co-accused Mohd. Sher

Khan were closed on the ground of unsafe mining and other

irregularities, only for the purpose of extracting illegal gratification

from him for the official functionaries of the Department of Mines.

reopened, Mohd. Sher Khan contacted Sanjay Sethi and Pankaj

Gehlot, through their Charted Accountant Shyam Sundar Singhvi

for the purpose of reopening of mines. It was found by the ACB