The Allahabad High Court, while refusing to grant relief to the accused of money laundering of Rs 1.60 crore in Gramin Bank Ballia, has rejected the application challenging the summons and non-bailable warrant order issued by the Special Judge, CBI Court, Lucknow.
A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed this order while hearing an application under Section 482 filed by Kirti Nath Tiwari.
By means of the application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant has challenged validity of the summoning / cognizance order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Allahabad.
The case has subsequently been transferred to the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I– 6, Lucknow and the applicant has approached the Court when the trial Court has passed an order dated 19.04.2023 issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant.
The facts of the case are that on 29.05.2000, the Regional Manager, Ballia Gramin Bank, Ballia had sent a complaint against one Chandra Prakash Singh, Branch Manager, Ballia, Gramin Bank and some unknown persons, stating that when Chandra Prakash Singh was posted as Branch Manager during the period December 2008 to December 2009, he had embezzled public money for his personal gain and had misappropriated an amount of 1.60 Crores (approximately) ₹ 1.60 Crores (approximately) and had thereby caused financial loss to the bank.
In furtherance of the aforesaid complaint, a First Information Report bearing under Sections 120-B, 409, 420 I.P.C read with Sections 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed on 11.06.2010 against Chandra Prakash Singh and other unknown persons.
The matter was investigated by CBI/ACB and on 30.06.2011, a charge-sheet was forwarded alleging commission of offences under Sections 120 B, 409, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offence under Sections 409 and 477A IPC and Sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against several persons, including the applicant, alleging that Chandra Prakash Singh had caused wrongful loss of 56,47,592/- ₹ 1.60 Crores (approximately) to the bank in criminal conspiracy with the applicant and certain other persons. The charge-sheet was submitted on 04.07.2011.
Subsequently on 06.01.2012 the E.D registered ECIR, investigated the matter, recorded statements of several persons, including the applicant, and filed a complaint against five persons, including the applicant, on 16.09.2017 in the Court of Special Judge, PMLA, Allahabad, which has subsequently been transferred to Lucknow.
Regarding the applicant, it is stated in the complaint that he had posted the manifold in respect of the loan account that these manifolds had been issued from Dataha and were used to close the loan account. No account opening forms and no KYC documents were available in respect of the aforesaid loan accounts.
The complaint states that the applicant knowingly assisted co-accused Chandra Prakash Singh in his wrongdoings and allowed him to use his ID and password for fraudulent transactions of banking funds and thereby committed offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The trial court took cognizance of the case and summoned the accused persons by means of an order dated 02.04.2018.
There is absolutely no mention in the affidavit filed in support of the application regarding the conduct of the applicant after passing of the summoning order dated 02.04.2018. A copy of the order dated 19.04.2023 annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the application indicates that an application was filed on behalf of the applicant, through Advocate, stating that he was not having good health, but the application was not supported by any medical certificate. Moreover, nobody was present to press the application. The Court observed that the applicant had not presented himself before the Court and obtained his release on bail.
Keeping in view these facts, the application was rejected and a Non-bailable warrant was issued for ensuring attendance of the applicant.
The applicant has filed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging validity of the order dated 02.04.2018 after passing of the order dated 19.04.2023 but he has not challenged the validity of the order dated 19.04.2023.
The aforesaid conduct of the applicant in avoiding the process of law and im not cooperating with the proceedings of trial and filing the application after expiry of a period of more than 5 years since passing of the summoning order disentitles him from claiming any discretionary relief.
It has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that no credible evidence or material has been produced by the investigating officer for certifying the culpable intention of the petitioner behind commission of the alleged offence.
It has been admitted in the affidavit that the applicant was responsible for posting and passing of transfer vouchers and cheques and the manifold in question had been posted by the applicant.
It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that computers had been installed in the branch in question a short while before the occurrence and the applicant was a trainee and he had complied with the orders of his superiors under bona fide belief about its correctness and he was not aware that his superior authority, namely co-accused Chandra Prakash Singh had deceived him. The affidavit asserts that the applicant had acted in a bona fide manner under subordination of co-accused Chandra Prakash Singh and, therefore, he is entitled to get benefit of Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court noted that,
The complaint has been filed by the E.D after lodging of a First Information Report in respect of a Scheduled Offence and submission of charge-sheet in furtherance thereof, which prima facie indicates that the applicant had assisted the co-accused Chandra Prakash Singh in commission of the scheduled offence and after carrying out an investigation in the matter and recording statements of witnesses, including the applicant and, therefore, it does not appear that the case falls in any of the conditions mentioned in the judgment in the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra) and, in any case, the case does not fall within the category of ‘rarest of rare’ cases mentioned by the Supreme Court in para 103 of the judgment.
However, nothing has been placed before the Court to indicate that the summoning order violates any order under the Code or that the continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of court or quashing of the proceedings is otherwise necessary to secure the ends of justice.
It has also been stated in the affidavit that the applicant has been falsely implicated and there is no sufficient evidence against him. Truth or otherwise of the allegations and sufficiency of evidence are questions to be dealt with by the trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence led before it and the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be allowed on these grounds.
The police has already filed a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C against the applicant in furtherance of First Information Report under sections 120-B, 409, 420 I.P.C read with Sections 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which are Scheduled Offences, alleging that Chandra Prakash Singh had caused wrongful loss of 56,47,592/- to the bank in criminal ₹ 1.60 Crores (approximately) conspiracy with the applicant and certain other persons. The ED had registered with ECIR, investigated the matter, recorded statements of several persons, including the applicant, and filed a complaint against five persons, including the applicant, stating that the applicant had posted the manifold in respect of loan accounts, which were used to close the loan accounts. No account opening forms and no KYC documents were available in respect of the aforesaid loan accounts. The complaint states that the applicant knowingly assisted co-accused Chandra Prakash Singh in his wrongdoings and allowed him to use his ID and password for fraudulent transactions of banking funds and thereby committed offence under Section 3 of PMLA.
“The aforesaid facts clearly make out a case for trial of the applicant for the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA and there appears to be no illegality in the order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the trial court taking cognizance of the case and summoning the accused persons.
The conduct of the applicant in avoiding the process of law since passing of the summoning order on 02.04.2018 and not co-operating with the proceedings of trial and filing the application after expiry of a period of more than 5 years since passing of the summoning order also disentitled him for claiming any discretionary relief.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that the application lacks merit”, the Court observed while rejecting the application.