9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1703 - SC - Money LaunderingChallenging the judgment of HC for transferring investigation from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to the CBI - Money Laundering - amassing of illicit wealth - unprecedented amounts - investment in property, shares - in India and abroad - former Ministers - In present case, the basic allegation is amassing of illicit wealth by various former Ministers of the State. The money alleged to have been so earned is of unprecedented amounts and their investment in property, shares etc. not only in India but also abroad. Therefore, he HC also observed that the Central Govt. should exercise the powers u/s 45(1A) of the PML Act for transferring investigation from the ED to the CBI. If such an order is not passed by the Central Govt, any material found by the CBI during investigation, which leads to an inference of money laundering will be shared by the CBI with the ED from time to time, to enable the ED to take such action, as may be necessary. The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment preferred this appeal. HELD THAT - On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the view that no interference is called for. the CBI is investigating into the commission of these offences alone and presently is not investigating any offence under the PML Act as the investigation under the PML Act is solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction and domain of the ED, which is of course subject to the exercise of powers by the Central Govt. u/s 45 (1-A) of the Act.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the PML Act is a self-contained code while the Act constituting the CBI is limited. 2. Whether the CBI has any authority to investigate offences which are the sole domain of the Enforcement Directorate under the PML Act. 3. Whether the High Court was right in directing investigation by the CBI. Detailed Analysis: 1. Self-Contained Code of PML Act: The appellant argued that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act) is a self-contained code, designed specifically to handle money laundering offences, and thus, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should not investigate these offences. The PML Act, enacted pursuant to the Political Declaration by the United Nations General Assembly, sets out the offences, manner of investigation, attachment, adjudication, and establishment of special courts and tribunals. It empowers the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to investigate money laundering offences and call on assistance from various departments. 2. Authority of CBI to Investigate: The appellant contended that the CBI lacks the authority to investigate money laundering offences, which fall under the exclusive domain of the ED as per the PML Act. The appellant cited the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act), which limits the CBI to investigating offences within Delhi and Union Territories, and argued that the PML Act, being enacted under Article 253 of the Constitution, prevails over any inconsistent State enactment. The appellant also referenced previous judgments, such as Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan and Others and Enforcement Directorate v. M. Samba Siva Rao, which emphasized that specialized agencies like the ED should handle specific offences under their respective acts. 3. High Court's Direction for CBI Investigation: The High Court directed the CBI to investigate the case, considering the gravity and magnitude of the allegations involving multi-state and multi-national investments. The High Court also observed that the Central Government should exercise its powers under section 45(1A) of the PML Act to transfer the investigation from the ED to the CBI if necessary. The appellant challenged this direction, arguing that the ED is the only legally and factually equipped authority to investigate money laundering offences. Court's Observations: The Supreme Court observed that the CBI is investigating offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and not under the PML Act. The investigation involves determining whether money has been acquired by abusing official positions, which falls under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI's investigation is limited to these offences, while any evidence of money laundering found during the investigation will be shared with the ED. The Court also noted that the PML Act does not restrict the investigation of scheduled offences by any appropriate investigating agency. The ED's jurisdiction is limited to investigating money laundering offences as defined under the PML Act, while the CBI can investigate other related offences. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions. The Court upheld the High Court's direction for the CBI to continue investigating the offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, while the ED remains responsible for investigating money laundering offences under the PML Act. The Court emphasized that the CBI's investigation does not encroach upon the ED's exclusive domain under the PML Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
