P. Chidambaram vs Directorate Of Enforcement

6. Upon receipt of a complaint on the basis of a cheque for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- made in favour of M/s Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited (ASCPL) by INX Media, the investigation wing of the Income Tax Department proceeded to investigate the matter and the relevant information was sought from the FIPB, which in turn, vide its letter dated 26.05.2008 sought clarification from the INX Media which justified its action saying that the downstream investment has been authorised and that the same was made in accordance with the approval of FIPB. It is alleged by the prosecution that in order to get out of the situation without any penal provision, INX Media entered into a criminal conspiracy with Sh. Karti Chidambaram, Promoter Director, Chess Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant-the then Finance Minister of India. INX Media through the letter dated 26.06.2008 tried to justify their action stating that the downstream investment has been approved and the same was made in accordance with approval.

7. The FIR further alleges that for the services rendered by Sh. Karti 5 Chidambaram to INX Media through Chess Management Services in getting the issues scuttled by influencing the public servants of FIPB unit of the Ministry of Finance, consideration in the form of payments were received against invoices raised on INX Media by ASCPL. It is alleged in the FIR that the very reason for getting the invoices raised in the name of ASCPL for the services rendered by Chess Management Services was with a view to conceal the identity of Sh. Karti Chidambaram inasmuch as on the day when the invoices were raised and payment was received. It is stated that Sh. Karti Chidambaram was the Promoter, Director of Chess Management Services whereas ASCPL was being controlled by him indirectly. It is alleged that the invoices approximately for an amount of Rs.3.50 crores were falsely got raised in favour of INX Media in the name of other companies in which Sh. Karti Chidambaram was having sustainable interest either directly or indirectly. It is alleged that such invoices were falsely got raised for creation of acquisition of media content, consultancy in respect of market research, acquisition of content of various genre of Audio- Video etc. It is alleged that INX Media Group in his record has clearly mentioned the purpose of payment of Rs.10,00,000/- to ASCPL as towards “management consultancy charges towards FIPB notification and clarification”. Alleging that the above acts of omission and commission prima facie disclose commission of offence, CBI has registered FIR in RC No.220/2017-E-0011 on 15.05.2017 under Section 120B read with Section 6 420 IPC, Section 8 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the aforesaid accused.

9. The High Court dismissed the application refusing to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant by holding that “it is a classic case of money-laundering”. The High Court observed that “it is a clear case of money-laundering”. The learned Single Judge dismissed the application for anticipatory bail by holding “that the alleged irregularities committed by the 7 appellant makes out a prima facie case for refusing pre-arrest bail to the appellant”. The learned Single Judge also held that “considering the gravity of the offence and the evasive reply given by the appellant to the questions put to him while he was under the protective cover extended to him by the court are the twin factors which weigh to deny the pre-arrest bail to the appellant”. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

27. Section 4 of PMLA deals with punishment for money laundering. Prior to Amendment Act 2 of 2013, Section 4 provided punishment with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and the fine which may extend to Rs.5,00,000/-. By Amendment Act 2 of 2013, Section 4 is amended w.e.f. 15.02.2013 vide S.O. 343(E) dated 08.02.2013. Now, the punishment prescribed under Section 4 of PMLA to the offender is rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and the offender is also liable to pay fine. The limit of fine has been done away with and now after the amendment, appropriate fine even above Rs.5,00,000/- can be imposed against the offender.

for a term of imprisonment of more than (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an three years under Part A of the Schedule opportunity to oppose the application for such shall be released on bail or on his own release; and

Re: Contention:- The appellant should have been confronted with the materials collected by the Enforcement Directorate earlier, before being produced to the court.

59. Interrogation of the accused and the answers elicited from the accused and the opinion whether the answers given by the accused are “satisfactory” or “evasive”, is purely within the domain of the investigating agency and the court cannot substitute its views by conducting mini trial at various stages of the investigation.

66. Whether direction to produce the transcripts could be issued:-

83. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. It is for the appellant to work out his remedy in accordance with law. As and when the application for regular bail is filed, the same shall be considered by the learned trial court on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in this judgment and the impugned order of the High Court.

September 05, 2019