9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 1145 - DSC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - predicate/scheduled offences - Hearing on charges in the scheduled offence - entitlement to mould the prayer in the original petition by filing a memo that to take up the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence and the offence of money laundering simultaneously - HELD THAT - On careful reading of Section 43(2) of PML Act it does not contemplate a trial of predicate/scheduled offence and the offence of money laundering simultaneously. The section only says that while trying an offence under the Act a Special Court shall also try an offence other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) with which the accused may under the Code of Criminal Procedure be charged at the same trial - On reading of Section 44(1)(a) of PML Act it only says that the offence punishable under Section 4 (PML Act) and any scheduled offence connected to the offence under that section shall be triable by the Special Court in which the offence has been committed. The plain reading of the section goes to show that the Special Court can also try the scheduled offence but not simultaneously with money laundering offence. Authorised person from Enforcement Directorate can also file an application before the Special Court which is dealing with the scheduled offence which is other than the Special Court dealing with money laundering offence. On such application being filed by authorised person from Enforcement Directorate predicate/scheduled offence can be committed to the Special Court as enshrined in Section 44(1)(c) of PML Act. On careful reading of Section 2(1)(u) of PML Act 2002 a wider definition is given to proceeds of crime including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relatable to a scheduled offence. Section 3 of PML Act 2002 further clarifies that a person shall be guilty of offence of money laundering if such a person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge in concealment possession acquisition use projecting as untainted property claiming as untainted property and the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime is a continuing activity. Which itself shows the offence of money laundering is a continuing offence. Section 44(1)(d) Explanation provides for that the Special Court shall not be dependent on any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offence - Sections 2(1)(u) 3 and 44(1)(d) of PML Act 2002 clearly goes to show that the offence of money laundering is a stand-alone offence and the trial proceedings are completely different with that of the scheduled offence. Trial of money laundering offence is independent trial and it is governed by its own provisions it will not meddle with the trial of scheduled offence. Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and The Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 are two different enactments they decide the controversies that arise under respective Acts one authority cannot interfere with the function of other authority under different Acts. PML Act has overriding effect under Section 71. There are no merits in the applications and the same are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the hearing on charges in the scheduled offences should be taken up before the money laundering offences. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to modify the prayer to take up the hearing on charges in the scheduled offences and the money laundering offences simultaneously. 3. To what relief the petitioners are entitled. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Hearing on Charges in Scheduled Offences Before Money Laundering Offences The petitioners filed multiple applications under Section 362 of Cr.P.C., requesting to take up the hearing on charges in the scheduled offences (C.C. Nos. 9/2012, 10/2012, 24/2013, 26/2013, and 27/2013) before the money laundering offences (S.C. Nos. 1/2016, 2/2016, 2/2017, 1/2018, and 2/2018). The petitioners contended that the trial of the predicate offence must precede the money laundering offence, arguing that without a conviction in the scheduled offences, the proceeds of crime cannot be established, thus nullifying the basis for the money laundering charges. The respondent/complainant (Enforcement Directorate) opposed, arguing that under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, the offence of money laundering is a stand-alone offence. The amendments to Section 44 of PMLA in 2013 and further clarifications in 2019 emphasize that the trial for money laundering is independent and not contingent upon the trial of the scheduled offence. The court noted that the PMLA allows for simultaneous trials but does not mandate that the scheduled offence must be tried first. The court concluded that the money laundering offence is a stand-alone offence and can be tried independently of the scheduled offences. The court referenced several judgments, including Binod Kumar Sinha vs. State of Jharkhand and Arun Kumar Mishra vs. Directorate of Enforcement, supporting the view that simultaneous trials are permissible but not mandatory. Issue 2: Modification of Prayer for Simultaneous Hearing The petitioners sought to modify their original prayer to request simultaneous hearings of both the scheduled offences and the money laundering offences. The court noted that such a modification would change the nature of the original petition, which is not permissible under law. The court emphasized that the offence of money laundering under PMLA is distinct and independent of the scheduled offences. The court highlighted that the amendments to PMLA through the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, clarified that the jurisdiction of the Special Court for money laundering is not dependent on the outcome of the scheduled offence. The court cited the Lok Sabha debates and the Supreme Court's interpretation of statutory explanations to support this view. Issue 3: Relief The court dismissed all the applications filed by the petitioners, emphasizing that the money laundering offence under PMLA is a stand-alone offence and can be tried independently of the scheduled offences. The court reiterated that the procedural basis for the conduct of cases, as established in previous orders, remains valid, and no abrupt departure from the settled procedure is warranted. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitions, affirming that the money laundering offences under PMLA are stand-alone offences that can be tried independently and are not contingent upon the trial or outcome of the scheduled offences. The request to modify the prayer for simultaneous hearings was also denied as it would alter the nature of the original petition. The court upheld the procedural integrity of previous orders, ensuring that both sets of offences can proceed as per the established legal framework.
|
