Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1706 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6701 of 2015)
GAUTAM KUNDU
APPELLANT(S)
:VERSUS:
Leave granted.
2.
judgment and order dated 21st July, 2015 passed by the High
Court of Calcutta in CRM No.6285 of 2015, whereby the High
Court has rejected appellant's application for bail under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The
appellant was arrested on 25.03.2015 in relation to an offence
alleged to have been committed under Section 3 of the
Page1
under
the
Companies
Act,
1956.
Certain
fulfilling
the
formalities
for
private
placement
of
Page2
On
the
basis
of
the
aforementioned
letter
dated
Page3
Page4
Page5
06.07.2015,
the
appellant
filed
fresh
bail
Page6
of
submission
made
by
learned
counsel
Gopal
Subramanium,
learned
senior
counsel
Page8
Page9
10
Page10
11
Page11
12
Page12
13
note
interpretation
therein.
of
It
statutes
is
an
that
accepted
where
an
principle
of
inadvertent
senior
counsel
for
the
appellant
further
Page13
14
reasons."
[Visitor,
AMU
v.
K.S.
Misra,
Page14
15
20.
Therefore,
appellant
learned
submitted,
the
senior
words
counsel
for the
"acquisition
of
21.
Page15
16
criminal
law
ought
to
be
absolutely
clear,
[Ref:
(i)
State
of
Madhya
22.
I t wa s a l t e r n a ti ve ly s ubm it te d by t he le ar n ed
s e ni o r
c o u ns e l
appearing
for
the
appellant
that
Act,
2012,
w.e.f.
15.02.2013
i.e.
re sult
of
crim inal
activity
relating
to
Page16
17
to
be
the
the
offences
ar e
a l l e g ed
to
have
be e n
w.e.f.
01.06.2009,
much
after
the
alleged
submitted
Companies
floated
that
Rose
Valley
Group
as
many
as
companies
27
of
Page17
18
investors
to
invest
in
(i)
Ashirbad
Scheme,
collected
from
the
public
at
large
were
of
the
the
Rose
Valley
Group
on
22.05.2014
and
action
of
search
and
seizure
was
Page18
19
24.
He
further
conducted by
Valley
submitted
the
illegally
that
respondent
and
the
investigation
revealed
fraudulently
that
collected
Rose
public
Valley
illegally
and
fraudulently
collected
Jharkhand,
Pradesh,
Uttar
amounting
P r a de s h ,
to
more
Delhi,
than
crores
collected
from
the
general
public
Mr.
Ranjit
Kumar,
learned
Solicitor
General
Page19
20
with
the
offence
of
money
laundering
case
and
the
High
Court
that
the
CMM
had
no
authority
to
take
Page20
21
Court'
and
therefore
has
to
be
given
restricted
with
criminals.
economic
The
offenders
object
of
and
PMLA
white
is
to
collar
prevent
derived
from,
or
involved
in,
no n - b a i l ab le
a nd
a ls o
pr ov ide s
t h at
person
accused
of
an
offence
Page21
22
while
considering
the
application
for
bail
Page22
23
down
in
Section
45
of
the
PMLA
will
have
than
three
years
under
Part-A
of
of
the
Page23
24
believing
PMLA are m a n d a t o r y a n d n e e d s t o b e c o m p l i e d
with
which
is
further
strengthened
by
the
shall
inconsistent
apply
with
in
the
so
far
provisions
as
of
they
this
are
not
Act and
Page24
25
an application for b a i l m a d e u n d er S e c t i o n 4 39 o f
Cr.P.C. That coupled with the provisions of Section
2 4 p r o v i d e s t h a t u n l e s s t h e c o n t r a r y i s proved, the
Authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of
crime are involved in money laundering and the
burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not
involved, lies on the appellant.
31.
offence
but
it
is
only
Section
12A
General
that
PMLA
being
Special
Page25
26
reading
of
the
language
used
in
the
p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e A c t a n d t h e S c h e d u l e appended
thereunder.
Hence,
there
is
no
ambiguity
that
that
Section
24
of
the
The f act
SEBI
Act
is
in
28
Page26
27
Admittedly,
against
the
appellant
on
the
allegation
of
stated
issued
that
Rose
debentures
in
Valley
the
has
years
repeatedly
2001-2002,
2004-2005, 2005-2006 a n d 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 0 8 t o m o r e
t h a n 4 9 p e r s o n s i n e a c h f i n a n c i a l y e a r without
filing offer documents with either the ROC or the
SEBI and r e q u e s t e d S E B I t o i n v e s t i g a t e i n t o
the
matter.
From
the
information provided by
sum
of
Rs.1282.225
lakhs
from
2585
persons by i s s u i n g s e c u r e d d e b e n t u r e s t o t h e
general
public
without
complying
with
the
Page27
28
1956.
Rose
Valley
by
m aking
public
issue
of
(Disclosure
Guidelines,
117(A)
of
2000
the
and
and
the
Companies
Investor
Protection)
provisions
of
Act,
and
1956
Section
other
schemes
manner
with
have
a
been
prepared
deliberative
design
in
and
calculative
motive
of
Page28
29
33.
Page29
30
Page30
31
Page31
32
Jagan
Mohan
Reddy
v.
Central
Bureau
of
Page32
33
of proof that the monies were not the proceeds of crime and
were not, therefore, tainted shifted on the accused persons
under Section 24 of the PML Act, 2002. The same proposition
of law is reiterated and followed by the Orissa High Court in
the unreported decision of Smt. Janata Jha v. Assistant
Director, Directorate of Enforcement (CRLMC No. 114 of
2011 decided on December 16, 2013). Therefore, taking into
account all these propositions of law, we feel that the
application for bail of the appellant should be seen at this
stage while the appellant is involved in the economic offence,
in general, and for the offence punishable under Section 4 of
the PMLA, in particular.
37.
Page33
34
in
the
offence
of
money
laundering
and
on
note
of
that
and
thereafter
after
satisfying
its
Page34
35
J
(Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
J
(R.K. Agrawal)
New Delhi;
December 16, 2015.
Page35