In a recent case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition against a supplementary prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directors ( ED ) against the director of Zoom Developers.
Petitioner , Manjri Choudhari who is one of the directors of Zoom developers Ltd.Her Husband and father in law are the two other directors of the company .The present appeal was filed against the Supplementary Prosecution Complaint filed by the ED against the petitioner related to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The original FIR was lodged at the instance of the lead consortium bank PNB ( Punjab National Bank ) owing to the default in the repayment of credit facilities availed by M/s. Zoom Developers Private Limited ( ZDPL ), despite the fact that the petitioner has nothing to do with ZDPL. Subsequent to that, E.D. also registered an Enforcement Case Information report.
During the adjudication Choudhary, the Counsel for petitioner submitted that the she was acting only on her husband‟s instructions, and has no knowledge or involvement in the original case registered against the other accused persons, she has been falsely arraigned only with a view to further harass her being the wife of the main accused.
Further the entire additional supplementary chargesheet, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner had any knowledge about money laundering activities as are alleged against her husband and other accused persons.
Himanshu Joshi,Counsel for the respondent argued that in the case of the petitioner’s husband Shri Vijay Choudhary, the Supreme Court has also held that Section 4 of the Act of 2002 makes no distinction between person directly involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and the other not so directly involved.
Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner being indirectly involved in the case, cannot seek clean chit at this stage as it would be necessary to allow the respondent to lead evidence against the petitioner and she will have ample opportunity to lead her evidence in her defense
It was observed that “since S.70 provides for a deeming provision, that the Director shall be deemed to be guilty of contravention, unless he or she proves that the contravention took place without his/her knowledge or connivance and that he/she exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention, in the considered opinion of this Court the petitioner being the Director of M/s. Zoom Realty Projects Private Ltd, cannot be let off at this stage, when she would have ample opportunity to lead evidence during the course of trial as provided under Section 70 of the Act of 2002.”
After analyzing the facts and arguments of both parties, a single bench of judge Subodh Abhyankar dismissed the petition against the supplementary prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directors against the director of Zoom Developers.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
