The Allahabad high court comes down heavily on advocate of accused involved in Prevention Of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for sending emails to enforcement directorate (ED).
The bench of Justice Samit Gopal has observed that the action of counsel(s) for the applicant of sending emails directly to the Investigating Officer was not proper and cannot be appreciated. The investigating agency was duly represented by its Counsel/Standing Counsel right from the first day and were expected to comply with any direction(s) given by the Court.
“If the rival party needed to demonstrate that the same has not been complied with, the proper forum was to apprise the Court when the matter was next placed. A counsel cannot identify himself with his client. He cannot interact directly with agencies like Investigating Officer, etc. unless and until ordered so by a court particularly with regards to sub judice proceedings,” the bench added.
Table of Contents
Background
A complaint was filed by the Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement against SVOGL Oil Gas & Energy Limited, Padam Singhee S/o Late Sh. Chimanlal Singhee, Director of M/s. SVOGL; Prem Singhee S/o Late Sh. Chimanlal Singhee, Director of M/s. SVOGL; Practical Properties Private Limited; M/s Bee Tee Credit Marketing Private Limited; M/s Resimpex Real Estate Private Limited; M/s Realtech Property Solution Private Limited.
The allegation involved are under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in the present matter. M/s SVOGL Oil Gas & Energy Limited availed credit facilities from Punjab National Bank between 2006 and 2017. Padam Singhee and Prem Singhee key managerial persons of M/s SVOGL and others through associate entities siphoned off the loans availed by indulging in criminal conspiracy and generated Proceeds of Crime within the meaning of Section 2(1) (u) of PMLA. The loss incurred to the Complainant Bank is to the tune of Rs. 252,61,46,476/- which constitutes Proceeds of Crime in the instant case.
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant contended that the predicate offence since remains to see the charge sheet and the present matter is also to be tried together by the same court, there will be delay in the trial since charge sheet has not been submitted in the predicate offence and as such the trial cannot proceed. No fraud has been committed since the claim of the Bank for declaring the Company as “Wilful Defaulter” or its account as “Fraud” has been struck down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
ED’s Arguments
The ED argued that the complaint under PMLA has been filed with regards to the proceeds of crime. After taking money from the bank the same was transferred to shell companies and then siphoned off. No joint trial is required as per Sections 44(1) (c) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The ED argued that there is no requirement of charge sheet in the predicate offence. The complaint particularly Table Nos. 6 to 13 clearly shows involvement of the applicant and the modus operandi. Prevention of Money Laundering Act lays down its twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45 which is applicable and due to the same, bail is not liable to be granted to the applicant.
Issue Regarding E-Mails Being Sent By The Counsel(S) For The Applicant To The Investigating Officer
The Enforcement Directorate raised the issue with regards to the competency of an Advocate representing the parties to interact directly with the investigating agency with regards to the matter pending in the court in which the said agency is duly represented by its counsel needs to be considered and decided.
Conclusion
The court stated that let the applicant- Padam Singhee, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice.
The court while addressing the issue of e-mails by the accused’s lawyer to the investigating agency held that interacting directly with agencies, Investigating Officers, etc., is not the duty of a counsel appointed by an accused. He is to represent him in Court only. His work is to assist the Court. An order passed by a Court is expected to be followed and complied with by parties and if any party has any grievance against the other, the proper procedure is to apprise the Court about it.
“Thus this Court does not appreciate the said act/conduct of the counsel(s) for the applicant to send emails directly to the Investigating Officer in a matter which was pending before the Court and considers the objection of learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate to be valid,” the court said.
The court held that the advocate of the accused is not permitted to interact directly with the investigating agency like Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Read More: Sickness Or Infirmity Valid Grounds Of Bail For An Accused Under PMLA: Supreme Court
Case Details
Case Title: Padam Singhee Versus Directorate Of Enforcement
Case No.: CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 32236 of 2024
Date: 14.11.2024
Counsel For Applicant: Ram M. Kaushik
Counsel For Respondent: Jitendra Prasad Mishra, Pawan Kumar Srivastava
