Full Text
Date of Decision: 14th August, 2024
SATHISH BABU SANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Advocate
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel for ED
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
JUDGMENT
Court in W.P(CRL.)2903/2019)
1. The application has been filed on behalf the petitioner for recall of the judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed in Writ Petition (Crl.)No. 2903/2019.
2. It is submitted in the application that the aforementioned petition has been dismissed without dealing with any of the grounds raised by the petitioner and without dealing with the submissions made in the written submissions which were placed on record. Several grounds had been raised to show why the ECIR No.2 of 2017 deserve to be quashed against the petitioner, but the Writ Petition has been dismissed without answering two seminal questions of law arising in the facts of the case—i.e., (i) whether the Respondent/ED is permitted to “reinvestigate” the offence under Sections 3 and 4 PMLA, and (ii) whether a person formally accused of the offence under Section 3 and 4 PMLA is entitled to protection under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 25 Indian Evidence Act in case of Summons issued under Section 50 PMLA. Moreover, there are several prejudicial observations against the petitioner which are patently contrary to the record of the case and did not arise for adjudication in the Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has pointed out certain factual errors in various paragraphs which needs to be corrected.
4. Sh. Zoheb Hussain, Ld. Spl. Counsel on behalf of the respondent ED has admitted that petitioner was only a witness in the PMLA case, though an accused in the CBI case.
5. Submissions heard.
6. At the outset, we may observe that though two Petitions were filed, but in the petitions the facts of the CBI case as well as of PMLA were intermingled instead of being separately stated in the two petitions. Consequently some typographical errors have crept into the judgement dated 19.07.2024 which are being rectified herein below:
7. In paragraph 15 it has been mentioned that the summoning Order is dated 30.09.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court against Sana which was stayed by the High Court. The correct fact is that the summons under Section 50 PMLA dated 30.09.2019 were issued by ED, which had been stayed by this Hon’ble Court.
8. The correction in paragraph 15 is accordingly made and it be read that the summons under Section 50 PMLA dated 30.09.2019 were issued by ED, which had been stayed by this Hon’ble Court.
9. In paragraph 76 it has been mentioned that it is the ED’s case that Sana paid a sum of INR 12.69 Crores to Qureshi. However, the correct position is that the ED had alleged that a sum of INR 2.25 crores was paid by the petitioner to Qureshi.
10. The correction in paragraph 76 is accordingly made and it be read that the ED had alleged that a sum of INR 2.25 crores was paid by the petitioner to Qureshi.
11. In paragraph 80 it has been erroneously written that Sana has admitted to pay crores to Qureshi for obtaining illegal favours from government servants, when in fact the correct position is was an allegation made by ED against the petitioner. However, the petitioner has never admitted to payments for any illegal purpose.
12. The necessary correction is hereby made in paragraph 80 to indicate that these allegation had been made by ED against the petitioner.
13. Paragraph 83 reads as under: “Satish Babu Sana and Pradeep Koneru have, thus, prima facie committed offence of money laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 by directly or indirectly indulging in, knowingly assisting, knowingly a party and actually involved in all or any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property.”
14. In paragraph 83 there are erroneous findings, which are hereby deleted.
15. In paragraph 87 and 88 it has been recorded as a finding of this Court that the petitioner has been consistently changing his stand in the statements under Section 50 PMLA, based on para 7.[8] of the 2nd Sppl. Complaint.
16. However, it is hereby corrected that these are not the findings of the Court, but the allegations made by the prosecution. The petitioner’s statements have not been tested at trial.
17. It is further stated that the present petition had been filed in October, 2019 i.e. much prior to the decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. UOI 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 which was delivered in 2022. However, in paragraph 88 it has been observed that the petition is liable to be dismissed in the light of observations of Supreme Court in the judgement of Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary (supra).
18. This contention of the petitioner is not tenable as these aspects have been squarely addressed in paragraph 88 and 89, wherein it has been clearly indicated that the Apex Court in Vijay Bhatia (supra) has deprecated the practice of filing Writ Petitions challenging the validity of Section 50 of the Act despite its validity having been decided in Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary (supra).
19. We may observe before concluding, that the prayer made in both the Writ Petitions was to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 50 PMLA. It paragraph 84 of the impugned Order, reference has been made to the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. UOI 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, wherein the Three Judge Bench of Apex Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 50 of PMLA. Therefore, the relief sought may have existed at the time when the petition was filed in 2019, but with the findings of the Apex Court as mentioned above, the relief stood answered and satisfied.
20. We may thus, conclude that there were only typographical errors in the impugned Order which hereby stand rectified, as discussed above. There is no ground for recall of the impugned Order, as has also been conceded by Ld. Senior Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner.
21. We hereby clarify that the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the other reliefs as sought in his prayer in the Writ Petition, before the appropriate Forum.
22. The interim protection shall remain in force for another three weeks.
23. The application is accordingly disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE (NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE AUGUST 14, 2024