JAFAR MOHAMMED HASANFATTA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused in PMLA Complaint No. 3 of 2014 dated 18.7.2014 arising out of ECIR no. 01/SRT/2014. They have challenged in Revisionary Jurisdiction of this Court, the Order dated 18.7.2014 issued by the Special Court for PMLA at Ahmedabad, issuing summons against them by taking cognizance of the offence under Section 3 alleged in the said Complaint dated 18.7.2014, which is punishable under Section 4 of PMLA. It is the case of the petitioners that the impugned Order was passed despite there being no prima facie ground and absolute lack of any material evidence qua any of the petitioners to satisfy the necessary prerequisites for invoking Section 3 of PMLA against them and essential for taking cognizance and proceeding against each of the petitioners. The PMLA Complaint, subsequently filed two Supplementary Complaints Nos. 4/2014 and 9/2015 dated 29.10.2014 and 27.08.2015 respectively, ChargeSheet filed against others in the Scheduled Offence and statements recorded under PMLA before and even after cognizance are placed by the petitioners on record amongst other documents to buttress this position.

(2.) It is undisputed fact that none of these petitioners are arraigned as accused in the Scheduled Offences in which after investigations Charge Sheet has been filed.

(3.) Mr.Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor for the respondent No.1 has submitted that present revision is not maintainable at law. He has contended that the amount was remitted to the Company (Page 431) Para31 whereby property belonging to his family members were attached, including those of present applicant Rs.139 crores in the name of applicant No.2 was attached. This have been confirming by the adjudicating authority. He has submitted that properties are involved in the money laundering and during the investigation in respect of having knowledge and they received the payment and made further payment were in their name and they were signatory and having power to operate account and thereby they are involved in the case of money laundering and, therefore, it is denied that ingredients of offence are lacking.