JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. The petitioners seek sanction of a scheme of amalgamation proposed between them. The scheme contemplates vesting of the first petitioner (the transferor company) along with its assets, properties and liabilities with the second petitioner (the transferee company). The petitioners seek that, the direction be given for issuance of requisite notice to the Central Government under Section 394A of the Companies Act, 1956. Necessary directions be given for the purpose of publication of the pendency of this petition in the newspapers. By my Order dated August 19, 2015, I had required the petitioner to give notice to the Enforcement Directorate. Such a course was adopted as the person in control of the petitioners is under investigation by the Enforcement Directorate in respect of chit fund companies. The Enforcement Directorate has appeared and has filed an affidavit-in-opposition opposing the proposed scheme. The petitioners have filed an affidavit in reply thereto. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that, the Court ought to direct issuance of notice under Section 394A of the Companies Act, 1956 to the Central Government. The Court should also direct publication in the two newspapers in terms of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. So far as the objections of the Enforcement Directorate is concerned, it is submitted that, although the Enforcement Directorate is investigating into the alleged involvement of a natural person connected with the affairs of the petitioners and in relation to a chit fund company, such natural person has through another legal entity deposited a sum of Rs.11.50 Crores in fixed deposits with the Enforcement Department to secure the alleged benefit of the alleged crime. It is contended that, the second petitioner which is the transferee company is alleged to have had transactions with a chit fund company. Since under the proposed scheme the second petitioner continues to remain, the apprehensions of the Enforcement Directorate expressed in their affidavit and during the hearing are misplaced. Consequently, the Court should allow the petitioner to proceed with the scheme of amalgamation. On behalf of the Enforcement Directorate it is submitted that, the petitioners are under the control and management of one Srinjoy Bose. Srinjoy Bose through the transferee company had entered into an agreement with one Bengal Media Private Limited to run a Bengali news television channel at a monthly operating charge of Rs.80,00,000/- which was subsequently reduced to Rs.60,00,000/-. On behalf of the Enforcement Directorate it is submitted that, the petitioners are under the control and management of one Srinjoy Bose. Srinjoy Bose through the transferee company had entered into an agreement with one Bengal Media Private Limited to run a Bengali news television channel at a monthly operating charge of Rs.80,00,000/- which was subsequently reduced to Rs.60,00,000/-. The legal entity (Bengal Media Private Limited) with whom the transferee company had entered into such arrangement was under the control and management of Sudipto Sen. Sudipto Sen is involved in a chit fund scam through various legal entities (Saradha Group of Companies) of a value in excess of few thousand crores. Such legal entity namely, Bengal Media Private Limited was a part of the Saradha Group of Companies. Srinjoy Bose was well-aware of the business activities of the Saradha Group of Companies. Funds of the chit fund had flowed from the Saradha Group of Companies to the transferee company and Srinjoy Bose. Enforcement Directorate has been directed to investigate into the chit fund scams and institute appropriate proceedings based on the same in accordance law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by a judgment and order dated May 9, 2014 passed in W.P. (Civil) No. 401 of 2013. The Enforcement Directorate is investigating into such scam. In the event the scheme is sanctioned, the ongoing investigation against Srinjoy Bose and the legal entities under his control and management would be prejudiced. Therefore, the Enforcement Directorate is objecting to the sanction of the scheme. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. The petitioners seek sanction of a scheme of amalgamation between themselves. The scheme, if sanctioned, would allow the vesting of the first petitioner (transferor company) with all its assets, properties and liabilities in the second petitioner (the transferee company) with effect from the date specified in the scheme. It is settled law that, in the event a proposed scheme is found to be against public policy or is found to be a mechanism to defraud the revenue or is a fraud such scheme should not be sanctioned. A Court approached with a request to grant sanction to scheme need not arrive at a finding that the scheme is a mechanism to defraud the revenue or is a fraud to deny sanction. A Court approached with a request to grant sanction to scheme need not arrive at a finding that the scheme is a mechanism to defraud the revenue or is a fraud to deny sanction. It may deny sanction when it arrives at a finding that the apprehension of an objector that the scheme if sanctioned would result in a fraud would be sufficient ground to refuse sanction. At least one of the petitioner before me if not both has had business transactions with a legal entity under the control and management of a person who is involved in a chit fund scam. The investigation into such scam is underway. The Courts including the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have issued various directions from time to time governing the investigations into such scam. Both the petitioners are under the control and management of Srijnoy Bose. The second petitioner which is the transferee company in respect of the scheme under consideration had entered into an agreement with Bengal Media Private Limited (a company of the Saradha Group and under the control and management of Sudipto Sen) on September 8, 2010 to run “Channel-10” a Bengali news channel of Bengal Media Private Limited. In terms of such agreement Bengal Media Private Limited had agreed to pay the second petitioner a monthly operating charges of Rs.80,00,000/-. A subsequent agreement had been entered into on July 20, 2011 which had reduced the operating charges of Rs.60,00,000/- per month. Additional variable monthly charges equivalent to the 30 per cent of the net profit had been agreed to be borne by Bengal Media Private Limited. Sudipto Sen is the person in the control and management of Bengal Media Private Limited. He is involved in an ongoing criminal investigation in relation to his business of chit fund which he had generated under the umbrella of various legal entitles. Bengal Media Private Limited is one of companies under the umbrella of Saradha Group of Companies. Bengal Media Private Limited has been used by Sudipto Sen to channel funds of chit fund to various entities. Money of chit fund, therefore, had flowed from Sudipto Sen to Srinjoy Bose through the legal entities involved. Both the natural persons along with the legal entities and others are subject matter of the investigations by Central Bureau of Investigation as also the Enforcement Directorate. Money of chit fund, therefore, had flowed from Sudipto Sen to Srinjoy Bose through the legal entities involved. Both the natural persons along with the legal entities and others are subject matter of the investigations by Central Bureau of Investigation as also the Enforcement Directorate. The Central Bureau of Investigation has given no objection to the present scheme being sanctioned. The Enforcement Directorate is, however, opposing the sanction of the scheme on the ground that, if the scheme is sanctioned the same may hamper the discovery of the proceeds of the crime involved and the money laundering under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. This apprehension of the Enforcement Directorate cannot be termed to be without basis. The allegation is of an economic offence. The allegation is so serious that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has issued several directions with regard to its investigation. True, the allegations are yet to be established before a Court of law. Nonetheless, the gravity of the allegations and the nature of the offences alleged, in my view, require a Court to adopt a cautious approach. A sanction of a scheme of amalgamation between the two companies involved would make available to the persons in control and management of the companies various materials which would otherwise be not available but for the grant of the sanction, to camouflage the crime already committed or at least add layers to the crime and the accounts so as to prevent its complete unveiling at the instance of the authorities including the Enforcement Directorate. Once the scheme is sanctioned, it would allow the accounts of the companies to be merged into one. The respective assets and liabilities would become one. This would place additional materials at the disposal of a person in control of the resulting company to hide the proceeds of the crime, if any. At the very least, it would allow the person in control of the transferee company, once the scheme is sanctioned, better tools to camouflage and hide the crime, if any, than if the scheme is not sanctioned. Viewed from such perspective, the objections of the Enforcement Directorate have substance. The scheme, if sanctioned, would prevent a better investigation and would assist in shielding a crime. Viewed from such perspective, the objections of the Enforcement Directorate have substance. The scheme, if sanctioned, would prevent a better investigation and would assist in shielding a crime. The scheme, if sanctioned, has every potentiality of allowing an offender of an economic offence not only to camouflage and hide the economic offence but to set this sanction up as a defence to such investigation. The order of sanction has every potential of seriously prejudiciary the ongoing investigation. The scheme itself then may result in an economic offence. The contention that, as the proceeds of the alleged crime has already been secured by the transferee and the person in control of the transferee company with the Enforcement Directorate the scheme ought to sanction is not acceptable. The sum secured may not be the entire amount of the proceedings of the crime. The Enforcement Directorate is yet to quantify the quantum of the money involved. Unless there is a definite finding of such effect, it cannot be said that the transferee company or Srinjoy Bose have secured the entire claim of the Enforcement Directorate. Securing the proceeds of the crime cannot be equated with an absolution from the crime. Sanction of the present scheme would also permit Srinjoy Bose and the second petitioner to contend before the authorities that, the High Court has looked into the allegations of commission of the alleged economic offences and did not find any merit thereto. This would allow the accused to scuttle the ongoing investigation. The request of the petitioners to consider the objection of the Enforcement Directorate after directing notice to the Central Government under Section 394A of the Companies Act, 1956 and publication of advertisement is not accepted. The Court when presented with a petition seeking sanction of a scheme is required to direct issuance of a notice under Section 394A of the Companies Act, 1956 to the Central Government to ascertain the view of such Central Government. It is also required to direct issuance of publication in newspapers in accordance with the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 to ascertain the views of the public at large. These procedures can be adopted after adjudicating on the objections raised by the Enforcement Directorate. No law has been placed to suggest otherwise. The objections of the Enforcement Directorate are substantial. It is also required to direct issuance of publication in newspapers in accordance with the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 to ascertain the views of the public at large. These procedures can be adopted after adjudicating on the objections raised by the Enforcement Directorate. No law has been placed to suggest otherwise. The objections of the Enforcement Directorate are substantial. By reason of such objections and the grounds noted above, I am not inclined to hold that interest of justice would be sub-served by requiring the petitioners to issue notice under Section 394A of the Companies Act, 1956 and publish advertisements in terms of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. These steps, if allowed to be taken may also permit the petitioners to utilize them in the ongoing criminal investigation to contend that the High Court has admitted a petition for sanctioning a scheme despite the ongoing investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In such circumstances, C.P. No. 577 of 2015 connected with C.A. No. 206 of 2015 is dismissed. No order as to costs.