RAKESH BRIJLAL JAIN AND ANR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Judgment text excerpt

Revn.379.2016.doc Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 379 OF 2016 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2936 OF 2024 Rakesh Brijlal Jain and Ors. .. Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Jehan Lalkaka i./by Mr. Bhavesh Thakur, Advocates for Applicants.  Dr. D.S. Krishnaiyer, APP for State.  Mr. Gul Achhra for Respondent No.2 appearing as party in person.  Mr. Shriram Shirsat a/w. Ms. Karishma Raje and Mr. Shekhar Mane, Advocates for Respondent No.3 - ED. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2025 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Criminal Revision Application (for short “CRA”) No.379 of 2016 challenges legality and validity of the impugned order dated 08.08.2014, issuing process passed by the learned Special Judge, Mumbai under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “PMLA”), and seeks setting aside of the said order, principally on the ground that prima facie no offence whatsoever is made out under Sections 406, 418, 420 read with 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) from the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, the FIR filed, the statement of witnesses recorded during 1 Revn.379.2016.doc investigation, the chargesheet filed by prosecution M.E.C.R No. 12 of 2009 and and Criminal Case No. 04. of 2014 filed in the Special Court. 2. By order dated 01.09.2016, this Court recorded statement of learned APP that the Prosecutor appearing before the Special Court and the Investigating Officer shall not proceed with the complaint before the Special Judge. Ad-interim order dated 01.09.2016 is being continued till date. 3. I have heard the learned Advocates for respective par