Confessional statement of co-accused under Section 50 of PMLA not substantive: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court made the observation while granting bail to an accused in the IFFCO money laundering case.
3 min read
Justice Mahajan agreed with Jain's counsel that the "non-arrest of co-accused is a relevant factor which can be taken into account in addition to other surrounding factors to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner (Jain)."The Delhi High Court has recently held that the ‘confessional statement’ of a co-accused under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is “not a substantive piece of evidence” and can be used only for “corroboration in support of other evidence” to assure the court in concluding guilt.
A single-judge bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan, in its March 7 order, said, “…court cannot start with the confession of the co-accused to arrive at a finding of guilt but rather after considering all other evidence placed on record and arriving at the guilt of the accused, can the court look at the statement of the co-accused to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt.”
The high court made the observation while granting bail to an accused in the Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited (IFFCO) money laundering case, Sanjay Jain, subject to certain conditions.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered the case based on a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) FIR against the accused, including Jain, alleging that they entered into a criminal conspiracy and, during the period from 2007 to 2014, cheated and defrauded IFFCO, Indian Potash Limited and the Government of India by fraudulently importing fertilisers and other materials at inflated prices and claimed higher subsidy, thereby causing loss to the public exchequer.
The specific allegation against Jain was that he, along with the co-accused, acted as intermediaries who channelised the ill-gotten money through various firms and companies registered either in their names or in the names of the sons of the managing directors of IFFCO and Indian Potash Limited.
Justice Mahajan agreed with Jain’s counsel that the “non-arrest of co-accused is a relevant factor which can be taken into account in addition to other surrounding factors to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner (Jain).” The court further said Jain was also entitled to the benefit of the fact that the main accused, as well as some other accused persons, had already been granted bail.
The high court, in a detailed judgment, further observed that proceedings under Section 50 of the PMLA may be judicial proceedings for the limited purpose mentioned in the Act, but a confession made by an accused in his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA is “not a judicial confession”.
The court added that the PMLA does not include any provisions like Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, or Section 18 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, which specifically make a co-accused’s confession admissible against the other accused under certain eventualities.
The high court, however, said that when the statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA are “part of the material collected during investigation”, then such statements can be looked into at the stage of “considering” bail application for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether there are “broad probabilities, or reasons to believe, that the bail applicant is not guilty”.
You May Like
Photos
