ORDER : 1. All the present three revisions are filed by Diamond Power Infrastructure Limited as petitioner, through one Manishkumar Janakrai Pathak, Senior Manager (Legal), challenging three different orders passed on the same date i.e. 10/04/2023. 1.1. Criminal Revision No. 689 of 2023 is with a prayer to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge [PMLA] Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad and discharge/quash the proceedings against the petitioner in PMLA Case No. 5 of 2021. 1.2. Criminal Revision Application No. 690 of 2023 challenges order passed by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge [PMLA] Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad with a prayer to set aside the order and discharge/quash the proceeding against the petitioner in ACB Case No. 3 of 2020. 1.3. Criminal Revision Application No. 692 of 2023 challenges the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge [PMLA] Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad with a prayer to set aside the order and discharge/quash proceedings against the petitioner in PMLA Case No. 21 of 2018. 2. An FIR was registered on 26/03/2018 by CBI bearing registration no. 029018170006 against the revisionist which is Diamond Power Infrastructure Limited (for short “DPIL”) and its Director under Section 420, 467, 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On the basis of that FIR, the Enforcement Director registered case against DPIL bearing case no. ECIR/AMZO/03/2018. 2.1. The facts notice that the Deputy Director of ED issued order No. 2/2018 dated 24/04/2018, directing provisional attachment of thirty properties under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), out of which four properties belonged to DPIL. The charge sheet came to be filed on 13/07/2018 for the offences against the DPIL registered as ACB Case No. 3 of 2020. 2.2. In the meantime, proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short “IB Code, 2016”) before National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) was admitting DPIL in corporate Insolvency Resolution process by an order dated 24/08/2018. Moratorium under Section 14 of the IB Code was in effect and Interim Resolution Professional was appointed. 2.3. The confirmation order dated 01/10/2018 under Section 8 of the PMLA was passed confirming the provisional attachment order No. 02 of 2018 dated 24/04/2018. 2.4. Moratorium under Section 14 of the IB Code was in effect and Interim Resolution Professional was appointed. 2.3. The confirmation order dated 01/10/2018 under Section 8 of the PMLA was passed confirming the provisional attachment order No. 02 of 2018 dated 24/04/2018. 2.4. Upon completion of investigation by the ED in connection to ECIR/AMZO/03/2018, PMLA Case No. 21 of 2018 was filed on 26/12/2018. 2.5. Resolution Professional of DPIL on behalf of the lenders appealed before the Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 01/10/2018. The Appellate Tribunal under PMLA was pleased to set aside the confirmation order on 18/06/2019. 3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Bhatt submitted that aggrieved by the order dated 18/06/2019 of the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal under PMLA, the Enforcement Director filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, wherein considering prima facie case, the provisional attachment order dated 24/04/2018 along with confirmation order dated 01/10/2018 were resurrected and order dated 18/09/2011 was stayed. 4. Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate submitted that on completion of investigation by the Enforcement Director in connection with the ECIR/AMZO/03/2018, a supplementary complaint being PMLA Case No. 5 of 2021 was filed after the Case No. 21 of 2018 was registered. 5. Referring to further facts of the case, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt submitted that the Resolution Professional of DPIL preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12468 of 2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India challenging the order of stay against the DPIL. Meanwhile, the Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant i.e. Consortium of M/s. GSEC Ltd. and Mr. Rakesh Shah was approved by the committee of Creditors on 06/01/2022. In furtherance, the Resolution Plan was submitted for approval before the NCLT, which was approved by the NCLT vide order dated 20/06/2022. Thus, Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate submitted that in view of the change, Civil Application (For Vacating Interim Relief) No. 2 of 2022 in R/First Appeal No. 5180 of 2019 was filed before this High Court for vacating the stay apprising the court that the resolution applicant cannot be made to suffer due to past liabilities and obligations of the previous management. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt submitted that the Resolution Applicant shall always take over on a clean slate as mandated by way of judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt submitted that the Resolution Applicant shall always take over on a clean slate as mandated by way of judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said application of the petitioner was disposed of on 14/09/2022 observing pendency of the SLP, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt submitted that the SLP which has been preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is under Section 32-A(2) of the IB Code, 2016 which was in connection with the property of the Corporate Debtor: Sub-Section (2) is as under: “(2) No action shall be taken against the property of the corporate debtor in relation to an offence committed prior to the commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process of the corporate debtor, where such property is covered under a resolution plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31, which results in the change in control of the corporate debtor to a person, or sale of liquidation assets under the provisions of Chapter-III of Part-II of the Code to a person, who was not: (i) a promoter or in the management or control of the corporate debtor or a related party of such a person. (ii) a person with regard to whom the relevant investigating authority has, on the basis of material in its possession reason to believe that he had abetted or conspired for the commission of the offence, and has submitted or filed a report or complaint to the relevant statutory authority or Court. Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that: (i) an action against the property of the corporate debtor in relation to an offence shall include the attachment, seizure, retention or confiscation of such property under such law as may be applicable to the corporate debtor. (ii) nothing in this sub-section shall be construed to bar an action against the property of any person, other than the corporate debtor or a person who has acquired such property through corporate insolvency resolution process or liquidation process under this Code and fulfills the requirements specified in this section, against whom such an action may be taken under such law as may be applicable.” 7. Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate submitted that present application before this Court is under Section 32A(1). Mr. Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate submitted that present application before this Court is under Section 32A(1). Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the proceeding before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is at the stage of issuance of notice and SLP No. 17973 of 2022 is tagged with SLP No. 12468 of 2021 filed by the resolution applicant. 8. Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the petitioner approached the Sessions Court by way of Discharge Application under Section 227 of the CrPC and Section 71 of the PMLA Act. The learned Judge was not please to entertain the application and, rejected the same on 10/04/2023. 9. Aggrieved by the said orders, the revisionist is before this Court. 10. Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate submitted that sessions judge fell in error in disallowing the discharge application on the ground of pendency of litigation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate submitted that pendency of the SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court would have no relation with the application for discharge since it was for the court to examine the issue regarding the maintainability of the proceedings of the offence alleged against the petitioner as the resolution plan has been approved and new management has taken over. 12. Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate submitted that after commencement of CIRP and Moratorium period in effect there cannot be the institution or continuation of proceedings against the Corporate Debtor including the execution of any judgment decree or order and, thus, submitted that considering the Moratorium period in effect, in consonance with the overriding effect of the IB Code, 2016, these proceedings by the CBI shall be rendered infructuous, against the Corporate Debtor the petitioner. 13. Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the learned Sessions Court has failed to appreciate that Section 32-A of the IBC, 2016, which provides New Management protection from the offences and liabilities prior to the commencement of the CIRP, mandates that the Corporate Debtor shall not be prosecuted for such offence from the date the Resolution Plan been approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the IB Code, 2016. Mr. Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate, thus, submitted that the learned Sessions Court ought to have appreciated the fact that under proviso of Section 32A(1) any prosecution instituted against the Corporate Debtor during the pendency of the CIRP, the Corporate Debtor shall stand discharged from the date of the approval of the Resolution Plan. The learned Sessions Court fell in error in not appreciating that the new management does not have any person who were earlier in management and control of the Corporate Debtor, nor any promoter, the Investigation in the matters have clarified that present management does not have any person to be termed as abettor or conspirator for the commission of the offence. 14. Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate submitted that intention of legislation is to give absolute immunity and freedom to the new management and/or the investors who brings the Resolution Plan before the National Company Law Tribunal. Once the Resolution Plan is approved under Section 31 of IB Code, 2016, any offence committed prior to CIRP as against the Corporate Debtor ceases and that no liability can be attached to the Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor shall not be prosecuted for such offence, from the date of the Resolution Plan approved by the adjudicating authority. 15. Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate, referring to Section 32-A read with Section 238 of the IBC, 2016, submitted that it is crystal clear that the intention of the legislature is to grant immunity to the Corporate Debtor from prosecution in order to enable the new management, which takes over the business affairs of the Corporate Debtor, after approval of the Resolution Plan, to operate smoothly and carry on the business as a going concern. 16. Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manish Kumar vs. Union of India, Committee of Essar Steel Limited vs. Satishkumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 32-A and emphasized on the need for a successful Resolution Applicant “to make a clean break with the past and star on a clean slate.” 17. The Central Bureau of Investigation, through B.S. Chauhan, Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, has filed an affidavit-in-reply. 18. Mr. R.C. Kodekar, learned advocate for the CBI submitted that investigation started on the basis of reliable source information, and a case bearing no. The Central Bureau of Investigation, through B.S. Chauhan, Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, has filed an affidavit-in-reply. 18. Mr. R.C. Kodekar, learned advocate for the CBI submitted that investigation started on the basis of reliable source information, and a case bearing no. RC0292018A0006 dated 26/03/2018 was registered in CBI, ACB, Gandhinagar branch, against M/s. Diamond Power Infrastructure Limited (DPIL), Vadodara, Gujarat, Shri Suresh Narain Bhatnagar, founder of M/s. DPIL, Shri Amit Suresh Bhatnagar, Managing Director, M/s. Diamond Power Infrastructure Limited (DPIL), Shri Sumit Bhatnagar, Joint Managing Director, M/s. Diamond Power Infrastructure Limited (DPIL) and unknown public servants of various banks and other unknown person for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 19. Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate submitted that the CBI has filed its first charge sheet in this case before the Hon’ble Special Court of CBI Cases, Court No. 7, Bhadara, Ahmedabad on 13/07/2018 against M/s. Diamond Power Infrastructure Limited (A-1), Shri Suresh Narain Bhatnagar (A-2), Shri Amit Sureseh Bhatnagar (A-3), all Directors of M/s. DPIL, Shri Pradip Kumar Srivastav (A-5), the then DGM, Bank of India, Zonal Officer, Vadodara, Shri Vijay Venkatesh Agnihotri (A-6) the then AGM, Bank of India, Zonal Officer, Vadodara, Shri Chirag Gada (A-7), Director of M/s. Ruby Cables and Shri Niraj Sheth (A-8), Assistant Officer, Finance Department, M/s. DPIL for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof. 20. Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate submitted that M/s. Diamond Cables Private Limited was incorporated in the year 1992 and was subsequently converted into a limited company in the year 1993-94 and renamed as M/s. Diamond Cables Limited. Subsequently, in October, 2007, the company was renamed as M/s. Diamond Power Infrastructure Limited wherein accused Shresh Bhatnagar, Amit Bhatnagar and Sumit Bhatnagar were whole time Directors and as per the CBI, all the fraudulent transactions were carried out in the company on the instructions of these directors only. M/s. Diamond Power Infrastructure Limited had defaulted on its loans, taken from a consortium of banks and was figuring in the Defaulter’s List maintained by Reserve Bank of India on the basis of inputs received from the banks. 21. M/s. Diamond Power Infrastructure Limited had defaulted on its loans, taken from a consortium of banks and was figuring in the Defaulter’s List maintained by Reserve Bank of India on the basis of inputs received from the banks. 21. Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate submitted that M/s. Diamond Power Infrastructure Limited has entered into one time settlement against this default by agreeing to pay Rs.52.61 crores as well as assigning the receivables to the tune of Rs.33.00 crores to the earlier lenders against the outstanding defaulted loan amount of Rs.130.31. 22. Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate submitted that the CBI has nothing to comment on the procedural aspects regarding the confirmation order dated 01/10/2018 under Section 8 of the PMLA passed by the Adjudicating Authority and confirmation of the provisional attachment order no. 02/2018 dated 24/04/2018 of Enforcement Directorate, as order of attachment are in relation to the Enforcement Directorate. 23. Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate submitted that since the SLP is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court should be slow in entertaining the present application. Further, stated, that after filing of the SLP, the resolution plan of the successful Resolution Applicant i.e. Consortium of M/s. GSEC Ltd. and Mr. Rakesh Shah was approved by the committee of creditors on 06/01/2022 and on that basis, the resolution plan was approved by Hon’ble NCLT vide order dated 20/06/2022. The resolution plan as per proceedings and approval of joint meeting of all the lenders, does not dissolve criminal liability of accused applicant company i.e. M/s. Diamond Power Infrastructure Ltd. The applicant company is company incorporate as per the Company Act, 1956 having legal identity. Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate submitted that change of board of directors and management does not absolve company from any vicarious legal liabilities. Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate submitted that since the company M/s. DPIL had availed loan from consortium of banks and defaulted, hence, was charge-sheeted by the CBI. The prosecution was launched by CBI against the applicant company and its the then directors and others as they were found involved in offence of diversion of funds, who submitted forged documents i.e. fake RBI letter for obtaining loan from banks. The loan was applied/taken in the name of applicant, the prosecution has been launched against the applicant company for criminal liabilities of company and vicarious liabilities of its previous directors, and not against present management. Mr. The loan was applied/taken in the name of applicant, the prosecution has been launched against the applicant company for criminal liabilities of company and vicarious liabilities of its previous directors, and not against present management. Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate further submitted that M/s. DPIL availed loan from consortium of banks and defaulted, any change in board of directors and management is not a valid and sufficient ground for discharge of criminal liabilities of company and vicarious liabilities of its previous directors. Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate submitted that present management of M/s. DPIL has taken over as ordered by the Hon’ble NCLT vide order dated 20/06/2022. Thus, specifying that the NCLT has not said anything about the criminal liabilities of the accused applicant company M/s.DPIL, Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate further stated that the Hon’ble Sessions Judge has very categorically observed about the scheduled offence registered against the revisionist company and others, and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed, and since the petition is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the designated court has noted about the matter being subjudice. 24. Mr. P.Y. Divyeshwar, learned advocate for the respondent Enforcement Directorate in Criminal Revision Application No. 689 of 2023 and Criminal Revision Application No. 692 of 2023 stated that in Civil Application (For Vacating Interim Relief) No. 2 of 2022 in First Appeal No. 5180 of 2019, pendency of the SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to be noted and, thus, stated that in view of the expression of the bench, and in view of the fact that the SLP is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, present application would not maintainable. He has relied upon Para-29 of the order dated 14/09/2022 which is reproduced herein under: “29. Law on the subject is quite clear and is presented before this Court, what is far more vital is to apply the law to the facts of this case. Before undertaking this exercise, this Court notices the fact that what is sought to be prayed is vacating the order of stay dated 02.12.2020 passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 1 of 2019 in First Appeal No. 5180 of 2019, after by- partite hearing. This order of stay decided against the M/s. DPIL is challenged by the Resolution Professional and is presently pending before the Apex Court. This order of stay decided against the M/s. DPIL is challenged by the Resolution Professional and is presently pending before the Apex Court. The current status is indicative of the matter to be notified tentatively on 10.10.2022 being Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12468 of 2021. We can not be oblivious of the fact that the Apex Court has already issued the notice and after admission, this SLP is pending for motion hearing. Various aspects have been presented before this Court depicting chronology of events in post stay period, however, this pendency of SLP before the Apex Court would not allow this Court to pass any order making any changes, even if, there are subsequent events pressed into service before this Court including the upholding the constitutional validity of Section 32 A of the IB Code, 2016.” 25. Mr. Divyeshwar, learned advocate stated that in the impugned orders, the designated court has considered the said aspect and has noted the observation by the Division Bench of this Court which rejecting the application. 26. Section 32A(1) of the IB Code, 2016 is reproduced herein under: “32A. Liability for prior offences: (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law for the time being in force, the liability of a corporate debtor for an offence committed prior to the commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process shall cease, and the corporate debtor shall not be prosecuted for such an offence from the date the resolution plan has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority under section 31, if the resolution plan results in the change in the management or control of the corporate debtor to a person who was not: (a) a promoter or in the management or control of the corporate debtor or a related party of such a person. (b) a person with regard to whom the relevant investigating authority has, on the basis of material in its possession, reason to believe that he had abetted or conspired for the commission of the offence, and has submitted or filed a report or a complaint to the relevant statutory authority or Court: Provided that if a prosecution had been instituted during the corporate insolvency resolution process against such corporate debtor, it shall stand discharged from the date of approval of the resolution plan subject to requirements of this sub-section having been fulfilled: Provided further that every person who was a designated partner as defined in clause (j) of section 2 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (6 of 2009), or an officer who is in default, as defined in clause (60) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), or was in any manner in-charge of, or responsible to the corporate debtor for the conduct of its business or associated with the corporate debtor in any manner and who was directly or indirectly involved in the commission of such offence as per the report submitted or complaint filed by the investigating authority, shall continue to be liable to be prosecuted and punished for such an offence committed by the corporate debtor notwithstanding that the corporate debtor's liability has ceased under this sub-section.” 27. The reliance is also placed on Section 238 of the IB Code, 2016 which is also reproduced herein under: “Section 238. Provisions of this Code to override other laws - The provisions of this Code shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.” 28. Provisions of this Code to override other laws - The provisions of this Code shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.” 28. In the case of Manish Kumar vs. Union of India, Committee of Essar Steel Limited vs. Satishkumar Gupta, (2021) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in context of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in reference to the approach of the court in such cases indicated about the law enacting or modifying economic measure, with reference to the IB Code, 2016, and has noted thus: “Since the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 undoubtedly bears the brand of an economic measure upon its face, and in true spirit, being one of the most significant and dynamic economic experiments indulged in by the law giver, not by becoming servile to Parliament, but by way of time hollowed deference to the sovereign body experimenting in such matters, the Court will lean heavily in favour of such a law.” 29. In case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited through authorized signatory vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. through the Director and others, (2021) 9 SCC 657 , relied upon by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt, it was concluded as under: “102.1 That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the adjudicating authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan.” 30. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the adjudicating authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan.” 30. In view of conclusion in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra (supra), once the resolution plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders, and all claims which are not part of resolution plan, on the date of approval of the resolution plan by the adjudicating authority shall extinguish. 31. Herein this case, the resolution plan has been approved by the adjudicating authority on 20/06/2022. In view of the same, all the claims would get crystallized and those claims which are not part of resolution plan shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim which is not a part of the resolution plan. 32. Further, it is clarified in Para No. 102.2 of aforesaid case of Ghanshyam Mishra (supra) that: “The 2019 Amendment to Section 31 of the I & B Code is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which the I & B Code has come into effect.” 33. This Court has been called upon to consider the case of the applicant under Section 32A(1) of the IB Code, 2016. 34. In case of Manishkumar vs. Union of India (supra), in Para-317 of the order, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that: “317. Section 32A has been divided into three parts consisting of sub-sections (1) to (3). Under sub-Section (1), notwithstanding anything contained, either in the Code or in any other law, liability of a corporate debtor, for an offence committed prior to the commencement of the CIRP, shall cease. Further, the corporate debtor shall not be liable to be prosecuted for such an offence. Both, these immunities are subject to the following conditions: 317.1. Under sub-Section (1), notwithstanding anything contained, either in the Code or in any other law, liability of a corporate debtor, for an offence committed prior to the commencement of the CIRP, shall cease. Further, the corporate debtor shall not be liable to be prosecuted for such an offence. Both, these immunities are subject to the following conditions: 317.1. A Resolution Plan, in regard to the corporate debtor, must be approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the Code. 317.2. The Resolution Plan, so approved, must result in the change in the management or control of the corporate debtor. 317.3. The change in the management or control, under the approved Resolution Plan, must not be in favour of a person, who was a promoter, or in the management and control of the corporate debtor, or in favour of a related party of the corporate debtor. 317.4. The change in the management or control of the corporate debtor must not be in favour of a person, with regard to whom the relevant Investigating Authority has material which leads it to entertain the reason to believe that he had abetted or conspired for the commission of the offence and has submitted or filed a Report before the relevant Authority or the Court. This last limb may require a little more demystification.” 34.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court, thus, on combined reading of limits of sub-section (1) has noted in Para-319 as under: “319. Thus, the combined reading of the various limbs of sub-section (1) would show that while, on the one hand, the corporate debtor is freed from the liability for any offence committed before the commencement of the CIRP, the statutory immunity from the consequences of the commission of the offence by the corporate debtor is not available and the criminal liability will continue to haunt the persons, who were in in-charge of the assets of the corporate debtor, or who were responsible for the conduct of its business or those who were associated with the corporate debtor in any manner, and who were directly or indirectly involved in the commission of the offence, and they will continue to be liable.” 34.2. While the effect of sub-section (2) of Section 32-A of the IB Code, 2016 has been noted in Para-320.1 and Para-320.2 which reads as under: “320.1 (i) There must be Resolution Plan, which is approved by the Adjudication Authority under Section 31 the Code. 320.2 (ii) The approved Resolution Plan must result in the change in control of the corporate debtor to a person, who was not - (a) a promoter; (b) in the management or control of the corporate debtor or (c) a related party of the corporate debtor; (d) a person with regard to whom the investigating authority, had, on the basis of the material, reason to believe that he has abetted or conspired for the commission of the offence and has submitted a Report or a complaint. If all these aforesaid conditions are fulfilled then the Law Giver has provided that no action can be taken against the property of the corporate debtor in connection with the offence.” 35. Here, this Court deals with the matter in context of sub- section (1) of under Section 32A of the IB Code which is declaratory in nature, to observe that; despite anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law for the time being in force, the liability of a corporate debtor for an offence committed prior to the commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process shall cease, and the corporate debtor shall not be prosecuted for such an offence from the date, the resolution plan has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority under section 31, if the resolution plan results in the change in the management or control of the corporate debtor to a person who was not: (a) a promoter or in the management or control of the corporate debtor or a related party of such a person; or (b) a person with regard to whom the relevant investigating authority has, on the basis of material in its possession, reason to believe that he had abetted or conspired for the commission of the offence, and has submitted or filed a report or a complaint to the relevant statutory authority or Court. 36. The first Proviso to sub-section (1) clarifies that if any prosecution has been instituted during the corporate insolvency resolution process against such corporate debtor, it shall stand discharged from the date of approval of the resolution plan. 37. 36. The first Proviso to sub-section (1) clarifies that if any prosecution has been instituted during the corporate insolvency resolution process against such corporate debtor, it shall stand discharged from the date of approval of the resolution plan. 37. This Court had an occasion to deal with an issue with regard to Vimal Oil and Foods Ltd. through M/s Arrhum Tradelink Private Limited by Rakesh Baluram Lahoti v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC Online Guj 1123, where this Court had placed reliance upon the decision in case of Manishkumar vs. Union of India (supra) and the case of Arun Kumar Jagatramka v. Jindal Steel and Power Limited in Civil Appeal No. 9664 of 2019 with Writ Petition (C) No. 269 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 2719 of 2020 wherein three modes of revival of the corporate debtor as contemplated under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016, was construed and considered, while this Court has dealt with the arguments and has laid down in Para-57 to 59 as under: “57. Learned advocate Mr. Kodekar for the CBI has referred to two judgments, (i) Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 (ii) Iridium India Telecome Ltd. v. Motorola Inc. Learned advocate Mr. Kodekar for the CBI has referred to two judgments, (i) Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 (ii) Iridium India Telecome Ltd. v. Motorola Inc. (2011) 1 SCC 74 , to contend that the criminal intent of persons controlling company can be imputed to company based on the principle of “alter- ego.” Section 29A of the IB Code is an answer to the corporate criminality liability and the immunity provided under section 32A of liability for the prior offences etc., and lays down that despite anything contrary contained in the IBC or any other law for the time being inforce, the liability of the corporate debtor for the offence committed prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process shall cease, and the corporate debtor shall not be prosecuted for such an offence from the date the resolution plan, has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority under section 31, if the resolution plans results in the change of management or control of the corporate debtor to a person who was not, a promoter or in the management or control of the corporate debtor or related party of such a person; or a person with regard to whom the relevant investigating authority has, on the basis of material in its possession, reason to believe that he had abetted or conspired to the commission of offence and has submitted and filed a report before the relevant statutory authority or Court. 58. The proviso to sub-section (1) clarifies, that, if a prosecution had been instituted during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution process against such corporate debtor, it shall stand discharged from the date of approval of the resolution plan subject to fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the sub-section. 58. The proviso to sub-section (1) clarifies, that, if a prosecution had been instituted during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution process against such corporate debtor, it shall stand discharged from the date of approval of the resolution plan subject to fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the sub-section. The 2nd proviso to sub-section (1) further clarifies that every person who was a “designated partner’ as defined in clause (I) of section 2 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (6 of 2009), or an “officer who is in default”, as defined in clause (60) of section 2 of Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), or was in any manner in-charge of, or responsible to the corporate debtor for the conduct of its business or associated with the corporate debtor in any manner and who was directly or indirectly involved in the commission of such offence as per the report submitted or complaint filed by the investigating authority, shall continue to be liable to be prosecuted and punished for such an offence committed by the corporate debtor notwithstanding that the corporate debtor’s liability has ceased under section 32A. 59. Law is clear that as soon as a resolution plan has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority under section 31 and the resolution plans results in the change in control of the corporate debtor, it stands discharge for any of the offences committed prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. All persons, referred in second proviso, shall continue to liable to be prosecuted and punished for the offence committed by the corporate debtor, even though, the liability of the corporate debtor ceases.” 38. In the case of Manishkumar vs. Union of India (supra) it has been observed that, the extinguishment of the criminal liability of the corporate debtor is apparently important to the new management to make a clean break with the past and start on a clean slate. Doctrine of clean slate becomes adoptable, since the very intent is revival of the corporate debtor. Thus, this Court, having dealt with Section 32-A of the IB Code, 2016, has concluded in Para-74 of Vimal Oil and foods Ltd. (supra) as under: “74. Doctrine of clean slate becomes adoptable, since the very intent is revival of the corporate debtor. Thus, this Court, having dealt with Section 32-A of the IB Code, 2016, has concluded in Para-74 of Vimal Oil and foods Ltd. (supra) as under: “74. Thus, through Section 32A of IB Code, the insulation is provided to corporate debtor and to its properties as they would be susceptible to investigations or proceedings related to criminal offences committed by its, prior to the commencement of a CIRP, which would lead to imposition of liabilities and restrictions on the corporate debtor and its properties even after they were lawfully acquired by a resolution applicant or a successful bidder respectively. Section 29A read with section 35(1) (f), places restrictions on related parties of the corporate debtor from proposing a resolution plan and purchasing the property of the corporate debtor in the CIRP and liquidation process respectively. The proceedings under the IB Code are designed to ensure maximization of value, that requires transfer of the corporate debtor to bonafide persons, where position is safeguarded by ring-fencing them from prosecution and liabilities under offences committed by erstwhile promoter etc. When bonafide persons, takes over the management of the corporate debtor, they should not be penalized for the action of erstwhile management of the corporate debtor. Thus, VOFL as a going concern and its properties would not be liable for the alleged fraud of the earlier management.” 39. Section 32-A sub-section (1) expressly excludes the corporate debtor from the liability of the prior offence on order under Section 31 of the IB Code, 2016. The language of the provision makes it clear that the corporate debtor shall not be prosecuted for such offence from the date of resolution plan been approved by the adjudicating authority under Section 31 of the IB Code, 2016, on the resolution plan resulting into change in management and control of the corporate debtor. 40. Here, the Corporate Debtor as put on record now is managed and controlled by those not related to the earlier management. 40. Here, the Corporate Debtor as put on record now is managed and controlled by those not related to the earlier management. Relevant information on the basis of material is before the Investigating Officer to form an opinion, that from the date of resolution plan approved by the adjudicating authority under Section 31 of the IB Code, 2016, in result has changed the management and control of the Corporate Debtor, who would be coming in the company with clean slate then the Investigating Authority were required to file a closure report, before the concerned court against the corporate debtor since the corporate debtor stands discharged from the date of approval of the resolution plan. 41. Here, on the facts on record the persons who were in the earlier management of the DPIL are not in the present management, while according to the resolution plan of successful resolution applicant, is the consortium of M/s. GSEC and the declaration to that effect has been filed under Section 29 A of the IB Act and thereupon there has been approval of the resolution plan under Section 31 of the IB Code, 2016. Thus, in view of the matter, the revision applications are required to be allowed. 42. Hence, the Criminal Revision Applications are allowed. Present revisionist DPIL shall stand discharged in PMLA Case No. 5 of 2021, PMLA Case No. 21 of 2018 and ACB Case No. 3 of 2020. The order dated 10/04/2023 in all the revision applications, are quashed and set aside, with a direction to the Corporate Debtor to extend all the assistance and co- operation to any authority investigating an offence committed prior to the corporate insolvency resolution process in view of the provisions of Section 32A(3) of the IB Code, 2016.