Hareesh Babu Madineni and others v. State of Kerala and Enforcement Directorate

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1944 ## CRL.MC NO. 7288 OF 2019 [S.C.NO.789/2018 OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOZHIKODE (SPECIAL COURT CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 43(1) OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 R/W. GOI NOTIFICATION VIDE 372(E) DATED 05.02.2016) ARISING FROM FILE NO.ECIR/KZSZO/1/2016 OF ## ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE KOZHIKODE) ## - - PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 3, 5,6,9 13: 1 HAREESH BABU MADINENI AGED 46 YEARS S/O. CHENCHU PUNNIAH CHOWDER MADINENI, HOUSE NO. 60/17/12, SIDHARDHA NAGAR, VIJAYAVADA, ANDRAPRADESH - 520 010. 2 S.R. PRASANTH AGED 37 YEARS S/O. SAMY SUNDARA RAJA, HOUSE NO. 60/17/12, SIDHARDHA NAGAR, VIJAYAVADA, ANDRAPRADESH - 520 010. 3 MEERA HARISH BABU MADINENI AGED 33 YEARS W/O. HARISH BABU, HOUSE NO. 60/17/12, SIDHARDHA NAGAR, VIJAYAVADA, ANDRAPRADESH - 520 010. 4 CHINNA RAO SWAYA VARAPPU S/O. VENKUDESWARA RAO, HOUSE NO. 60/17/12, SIDHARDHA NAGAR, VIJAYAVADA, ANDRAPRADESH - 520 010. 5 RADHA SUNDARA RAJA D/O. SAMY SUNDARA RAJA, HOUSE NO. 60/17/12, SIDHARDHA NAGAR, VIJAYAVADA, ANDRAPRADESH - 520 010. 6 NANO EXCEL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD 145/C, GROUND FLOOR, OPPOSITE SAINABA TEMPLE, VANGAL RAO NAGAR, HYDERABAD - 5200 038, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, HAREESH BABU MADINENI. 7 NANO EXCEL POWER CORPORATION LTD., LATER NAME CHANGED IN TO NANO EXCEL CORPORATION LTD., 2-56/D/7, PLOT NO, 1377 AND 1378, HT APARTMENT AYYAPA SOCIETY, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500 081 REPRESENTED BY CRL.MC No.7288 of 2019 2 ITS DIRECTOR HAREESH BABU MADINENI. 8 NIKHIL NANOCUETICALS PVT. LTD., JAIHIND SOCIETY MADHAPURE, HYDERABAD-500 081 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR PRASANTH SUNDAR RAJA. 9 NANO POWER CORPORATION LTD., 12B/1, 1-98/9/7/H/1, NARAYANA BUILDING, JAIHIND SOCIETY, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500 081 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, HAREESH BABU MADINENI. 10 NANOTEL HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD., 12B, JAIHIND SOCIETY, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500 081, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR HAREESH BABU MADINENI. BY ADV RAJIT ## RESPONDENTS/STATE,COMPLAINANT AND ACCUSED 4,7,8: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2 ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PMLA), DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, KOZHIKODE SUB ZONAL OFFICE, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, M.S.BABURAJ ROAD, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE. 3 PATRIC THOMAS, 9/17, RAJAGOPALAPURAM, NEAR THANKAMANI THEATRE, GUDALUR, NILGIRI - 643 211, TAMIL BNADU (NOW RESIDING AT KOCHUVEETIL HOUSE, PULIYARA, AGALI P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 581). 4 REJI PATRIK W/O. PATRIK THOMAS, RAJAGOPALAPURAM NEAR THANKAMANI THEATRE, GUDALUR, NILGIRI - 643 211, TAMIL NADU (NOW RESIDING AT KOCHUVEETIL HOUSE, PULIYARA, AGALI P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 581.) 5 SUDHAKAR RAJU, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. G. RAJU, NO.3, CORPORATION SCHOOL ROAD, LAKE AREA, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI- (NOW RESIDING AT KADAYIL, PUNATHILPADAM ROAD, MG NAGAR, PALARIVATTAM, ERNAKULAM - 682 025.) BY ADVS. CRL.MC No.7288 of 2019 3 R2 BY SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, S.C. ## OTHER PRESENT: R1 BY ADV. SUDHEER GOPALAKRISHNAN -PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC No.7288 of 2019 4 ## O R D E R The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3, 5,6 and 9 to 13 in S.C.No.789/2018 pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Kozhikode (Special Court constituted under Section 43(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 r/w. Government of India Notification vide 372(E) dated 5.2.2016.) The aforesaid case arises from file No.ECIR/KZSZO/1/2016 of Enforcement Directorate, Kozhikode Sub Zone. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioners for quashing Annexure-A complaint and all further proceedings pursuant thereto including the proceedings in the aforesaid Sessions Case. 2. The aforesaid crime was registered under Section 120B, 406, 420 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 4,5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme CRL.MC No.7288 of 2019 5 (Banning) Act, 1978 and Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954. 3. The Prosecution case is that, the petitioners deceived the public by selling products at a very high rate, by way of money circulation by stating to the public that, if they invest the amount in the company and become a member they will get back the amount paid fully in 6 months and 10 times the extra money by way of commission/royalty club bonus between 3 and 5 years. Further, it was assured that, the victims will get Nano Technology products which will increase their immunity power and refresh cure from disease miraculously. 4. Heard Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned Standing CRL.MC No.7288 of 2019 6 Counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate. 5. In support of the relief sought in the Crl.M.C., the petitioners have raised several contentions in the Crl.M.C. However, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners confined his relief to have an opportunity to raise all the aforesaid contentions before the learned Sessions Judge and seek discharge in absentia. 6. In M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ltd v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd [(2001)7 SCC 401] , it was held that, the personal exemption can be granted to a person by the court concerned in appropriate circumstances. It is true that the case dealt with in Bhaskar Industries’ case (supra) was concerning a summons case. In Noorjahan v. T.T. Moideen and Others [2000(2)KLT 756], this Court held that, the Court has CRL.MC No.7288 of 2019 7 discretionary power to exempt the personal appearance of the accused even in warrant cases and to have the plea of the counsel who is specifically authorized for that purpose. In Moosa Pattupara v. State of Kerala [2022(2)KLT 207] , it was held by this Court that, the aforesaid principles for granting exemption from the personal appearance of the accused can be applied to appropriate Sessions Cases as well. In this case, it is discernible from the records that, the petitioners hail from Andhra Pradesh. The prayer sought is to raise the plea of discharge before the court in absentia. Since the prayer for discharge can be considered even without the physical presence of the accused, I am of the view that, the same can be allowed in the light of the principles laid down in the decisions referred above. While taking this view, I have taken note of the fact that the petitioners are from another State. CRL.MC No.7288 of 2019 8 7. In such circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to submit appropriate application for discharge before the Special Court in absentia through the counsel. However, it is made clear that, in case the learned Sessions Judge finds that there are materials on record to continue the prosecution against the petitioners and to frame the charge, it shall be open for the court to insist upon the personal appearance of the petitioners at the appropriate stage. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE pkk CRL.MC No.7288 of 2019 9 ## APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7288/2019 PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ACCUSED COMPANY NOT SHOWN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF SOME OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS.