Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Jharkhand High Court Denies Exemption from Personal Appearance to Accused in Rs. 190 Crore Money Laundering Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has dismissed a petition seeking exemption from personal appearance by the accused in a high-profile money laundering case involving a staggering Rs. 190 crores. The case, W.P.(Cr.) No. 136 of 2023, had been filed by Rajeev Jhawar, the Managing Director of Usha Martin Limited, challenging the dismissal of his application for exemption by the District & Sessions-cum-Special Judge, who was hearing the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The Court, presided over by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, examined the merits of the petitioner's plea and the submissions made by both the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, and the counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, Mr. Amit Kumar Das.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was not originally named as an accused in the FIR filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Usha Martin Limited and others. However, the Enforcement Directorate subsequently added the petitioner's name through a supplementary complaint. The counsel contended that the petitioner had cooperated in the investigation and cited health issues and responsibilities abroad as reasons for seeking exemption.

On the other hand, the Enforcement Directorate's counsel asserted that the petitioner had not fully cooperated in the investigation, had left the country during the Covid-19 period, and had even been accused of attempting to bribe a CBI officer in a separate case.

In its ruling, the Court cited the serious nature of the allegations and the necessity of the accused personally appearing before the court. It emphasized that Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) provides a concession at the discretion of the learned Magistrate, and sufficient grounds must be established for exemption from personal appearance. The Court dismissed the petitioner's plea, upholding the lower court's decision to deny exemption.

The ruling sets an important precedent, as the Court observed that granting such exemptions in cases involving large sums of money and grave economic offenses could undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The Court underscored that irrespective of a person's position, all accused are subject to the same legal processes and should face proceedings without any special privilege.

In this context, the Court referred to previous judgments, including "Rana Kapoor Vs. Directorate of Enforcement & Another," "Govind Prakash Pandey Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Govt. of India," and others, which had dealt with similar issues of exemption in bail applications.

Date of Decision: 06/02.08.2023             

Rajeev Jhawar vs Assistant Director

Latest Legal News