1 18.APL.310-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.310 OF 2011 Mr.Ajay Amolchand Bafna. .. Applicant. Versus The Directorate of Enforcement and two others. .. Respondents. .... Mr.A.P. Mundargi i/b. M.K. Kocharekar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.A.H. Kantharia, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J. DATED : 04TH MAY, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard rival submissions for sometime on this Criminal Application preferred by the applicant under the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying for cancellation of non­bailable warrant dated 21.8.2010 issued against the applicant in the case registered by the Enforcement Directorate bearing No.ECIR/02/PAT/09 pending before the learned 15 th Additional Commissioner­cum­Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Ranchi (Jharkhand). It is also prayed that pending hearing and final disposal of the present application, directions to 2 18.APL.310-11 be given to the Enforcement Department, New Delhi not to execute the non­bailable warrant dated 21.8.2010 issued in the said case. 2. Without going into much details of the matter against the present applicant, suffice it to say that initially on 5th April, 2010 a summons was issued against the present applicant when the Assistant Director of Directorate of Enforcement was making investigation under the provisions of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and he considered attendance of the present applicant necessary in connection with the said investigation. Accordingly, directions were given to the present applicant to remain present before the said Officer on 19.4.2010 at 11:30 hours with the documents as scheduled in the said summons, such as, passport, details of post office and bank accounts maintained by him and his family members in and outside India, details of movable and immovable properties in the name of the family members and in the name of the applicant since 2005, details of the business carried out by the applicant and his family since 2005, and names and addresses of the firms/companies based in and outside India in which he is proprietor/partner/director since 2005, and names and addresses 3 18.APL.310-11 of the banks of such firms/companies situated in and outside India. 3. Admittedly, said summons was served on the petitioner. However, it was replied by the wife of the applicant vide letter dated 19.4.2010. The said reply is annexed to the present application at Pages­19 & 20, in which it is mentioned that the present applicant had gone out on meditation camp and would likely to return not before 30.4.2010 and that the applicant would like to cooperate with the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate. At the end of the letters, it is assured that the Department would be kept informed properly as to when the applicant will attend before the Officer. 4. Thereafter apparently there is an application preferred by the Directorate of Enforcement before the Court of 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner­cum­Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act at Ranchi in Case No. ECIR/02/PAT/09. Said application was made asking for the requisite non­bailable warrant against total seven persons including the present applicant herein. It was mentioned in the said Application of the Directorate of Enforcement that the said named persons were involved in the 4 18.APL.310-11 offence of money laundering as defined in Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and punishable under Section 4 of the said Act and various opportunities were given by issuance of summons, however, the persons did not remain present and as such there was prayer for issuance of non­bailable warrant against the respective persons including the present applicant herein. Apparently, on the same day, considering the said application and grounds of arrest mentioned at the annexure of the said application, which grounds of such arrest are at page­27 of the present application, learned Special Court at Ranchi was pleased to issue non­bailable warrant against the concerned persons including the present applicant herein. It is significant to note that such non­bailable warrant was issued on 21.8.2010. 5. It is a factual position that in the month of April, 2011 present application is preferred before this Court. However, there is no clear understanding given by the applicant in the present application as to on which date he knew regarding issuance of such non­bailable warrant and on which date he received the certified copy of the charge­sheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate 5 18.APL.310-11 before the Special Court at Ranchi, though, it is specifically mentioned in para­4, on page­5 of the application, that such certified copy has been obtained by the applicant herein. It is still a factual position that there is nothing brought before the Court, though, it is averred in para­4 of the Application that telephone calls were made to Enforcement Directorate at New Delhi to fix up the date of the hearing. No more details are given much less writing of any letter to the Enforcement Directorate. This is more so in view of the specific undertaking given in the letter written to the Enforcement by the wife of the applicant dated 19th April, 2010. 6. As argued on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate, there are various impediments in granting the relief as asked by the applicant inasmuch as there are laches on the part of the applicant in coming to this Court and not approaching the appropriate Court even to the Court which issued non­bailable warrant, for cancellation. Otherwise also, it was still possible for the applicant to attend the said concerned Court and asked for redressal of the grievance. In the opinion of this Court, under the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the warrant issued by the Special Court at 6 18.APL.310-11 Ranchi cannot be cancelled or even otherwise the circumstances do not warrant that any protection be given to the present applicant protecting him from arrest under the non­bailable warrant. In that view of the matter, there is nothing to entertain the present application and the same is accordingly rejected. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) PPD