9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 1031 - HC - Money LaunderingOffence under PMLA - Attachment of property involved in money-laundering - jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.- seeking the relief of quashing the criminal proceedings in Original Complaint in Provisional Attachment Order - Held that - It is pertinent to note here that on perusal of the records it is apparent that all the four cases in Crime Nos.277, 349, 350 and 391 of 2010 have been forwarded to the Magistrate for taking cognizance of the scheduled offences viz., the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 471 I.P.C., It is also manifested that a prima facie case relating to an offence under Section 3 of P.M.L.A., 2002 is made out, which requires further investigation on the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the said Act as well as with the rules framed therein. It is also crystallised that the second respondent has registered Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIR) Nos.53 of 2010, 54 of 2010, 55 of 2010 and 56 of 2010 (Annexures VII to X). Keeping in view of the above facts, this Court is also of opinion that since the properties 51 in numbers, described in Annexure-I, have been provisionally attached so as to prevent the petitioners from transferring them in favour of the third parties, the question of sending a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., does not arise at this stage.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings. 2. Provisional attachment of properties under PMLA, 2002. 3. Retrospective application of PMLA, 2002. 4. Requirement of notice prior to provisional attachment. 5. Requirement of a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before attachment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings: The petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceedings in Original Complaint (O.C.) No.73 of 2010 related to Provisional Attachment Order No.07/2010. The petitioners, directors of M/s.D.R.Logistics Pvt., Ltd., faced allegations under various sections of the IPC and PMLA, 2002. The court noted that the petitioners had already filed writ petitions (W.P.Nos.24444 and 24445 of 2010) seeking similar relief, which were dismissed, making the current petition an attempt to re-litigate the same issues. 2. Provisional Attachment of Properties under PMLA, 2002: The properties in question were provisionally attached by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 5(1) of PMLA, 2002, as they were allegedly acquired using proceeds of crime. The court found that the attachment was justified due to the urgency to prevent the transfer or concealment of these properties, which could frustrate confiscation proceedings. 3. Retrospective Application of PMLA, 2002: The petitioners argued that PMLA, 2002, should not apply retrospectively to offenses committed in 1999-2000. However, the court referred to the second proviso to Section 5(1) of PMLA, 2002, which allows attachment of properties acquired before the Act's enforcement. The court cited the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in B.Rama Raju vs. Union of India, which upheld the retrospective application of PMLA for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime. 4. Requirement of Notice Prior to Provisional Attachment: The petitioners contended that they were not served notice before the provisional attachment. The court clarified that PMLA, 2002, does not mandate prior notice for provisional attachment if the competent officer has reasons to believe that immediate attachment is necessary to prevent concealment or transfer of proceeds of crime. 5. Requirement of a Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Before Attachment: The petitioners argued that no report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the attachment. The court noted that the first proviso to Section 5(1) of PMLA, 2002, requires either a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. or a complaint filed for cognizance of the scheduled offense. Since the proceedings were at the provisional attachment stage, the requirement of a final report did not arise. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioners were estopped from re-litigating issues already decided in the previous writ petitions. The provisional attachment was upheld as necessary and justified under PMLA, 2002, and the retrospective application of the Act was deemed valid for attachment and confiscation purposes. The court emphasized the importance of preventing the abuse of process and securing the ends of justice.
|
