Allahabad High Court Refuses To Transfer PMLA Case After Accused Alleges Judge Demanded ₹1 Crore Bribe
The Allahabad Excessive Courtroom has refused to switch a PMLA Case after the accused within the matter alleged that the presiding Decide demanded ₹1 Crore bribe from him calling it false and imaginary allegations.
The Courtroom was contemplating a Writ Petition difficult an order whereby an Utility filed by the Petitioner for switch of case underneath Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act, 2002 from the Courtroom of Particular Decide, CBI (West)/Particular Courtroom PMLA to a different Courtroom, was rejected.
The Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noticed, “…….I’m of the thought of view that the switch software has been filed on false and imaginary allegations in order to keep away from dealing with trial earlier than the presiding officer who has handed two orders towards the petitioner. The realized Session Decide has not dedicated any illegality in passing the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 rejecting the switch software filed by the petitioner and I discover myself in full settlement with the view taken by the realized Classes Decide whereas rejecting handed on 11.04.2025.”
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Raj Vikram Singh, whereas the Respondent was represented by Authorities Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra.
Details of the Case
Whereas the Petitioner was working as Managing Director in LACFEDD, he was convicted and sentenced to bear 10 years’ imprisonment for committing offences underneath Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Part 7 Prevention of Corruption Act. An Attraction towards the identical was filed earlier than the Courtroom and he was granted bail as effectively.
Later, the Directorate of Enforcement filed a Grievance towards the Petitioner underneath Part 3/4 of the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act, 2002. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed an Utility underneath Part 448 of BNSS for switch of the criticism from the Courtroom of Particular Decide, CBI (West)/Particular Decide, E.D. inter alia stating that the Presiding Officer of the Courtroom demanded unlawful gratification of ₹1 crore from the Counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner moved a criticism on this regard to the Chief Justice however no motion was taken, presumably as a result of the Chief Justice didn’t discover any substance within the allegations levelled within the Grievance.
He additional alleged that the Decide rejected two of his Purposes with out paying heed to the judgments cited by his Counsel. The Presiding Officer categorically refuted the allegation of demand of bribe in open Courtroom and he additional acknowledged that when the Courtroom is in session, the employees of the Courtroom in addition to the general public prosecutor stay current there. The Session Decide noticed that there’s nothing on file to substantiate the allegations leveled towards the Presiding Officer.
Reasoning By Courtroom
The Courtroom took be aware of the truth that the criticism was made for the primary time after a few month because the Counsel for the Petitioner had taken the demand of bribe cash calmly as he has to seem earlier than the Courts day in and time out and he wished to keep away from any battle with any judicial officer and it was solely when a number of judicial orders had been handed towards the Petitioner, that the Counsel for the Petitioner thought it match to submit a criticism towards the Presiding Officer and file an software searching for switch of case from that Courtroom.
Noting that no cheap particular person of atypical prudence would imagine that on the time of listening to of the appliance underneath Part 311 Cr.P.C., solely the Presiding Officer and the counsel for the petitioner had been current within the Courtroom and no different particular person was current within the Courtroom room and that the Presiding Officer demanded ₹1 crore from the Counsel for the Petitioner in direction of bribe.
“The petitioner didn’t transfer any software for switch of the case or any criticism relating to demand of bribe cash until a number of judicial orders had been handed towards him. It was solely after he couldn’t get a keep order in proceedings instituted earlier than this Courtroom difficult the order of the trial Courtroom, that he selected to desire an software searching for switch of the case from the Courtroom which had handed orders towards the petitioner……Apparently, the switch software has been devised to keep away from dealing with trial earlier than the Courtroom, which has handed two judicial orders towards the petitioner and the problem to one of many orders has remained unsuccessful earlier than this Courtroom as no interim order has been handed by this Courtroom until date,“ the Courtroom noticed.
It famous that the allegation levelled that the Utility underneath Part 482 was made infructuous intentionally is seemingly false, scandalous and contemptuous.
“The averment made within the feedback submitted by the Presiding Officer of the trial Courtroom to the Session Decide, that the petitioner and his Counsel wish to mount strain on the Courtroom in order that they will extend the trial for they use loud noises within the Courtroom room, can also be appropriate, because the realized Counsel for the petitioner has continued with this conduct and he has used loud voice on this Courtroom additionally and he insisted that this Courtroom ought to cope with all of the judgments that had been referred by him earlier than the trial Courtroom in help of his functions underneath Part 311 Cr.P.C. and Part 59(2)(c) of PMLA and Part 161 learn with Sections 16 & 145 of the Proof Act, whereas these judgments usually are not related for inspecting the legality of the order rejecting the switch software,” the Courtroom additional famous.
The Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Trigger Title: Brahma Prakash Singh vs. State Of U.P. (2025:AHC-LKO:31387)
