2017 (6) TMI 1362 - HC - Money Laundering

Criminal Conspiracy - seeking to transfer the cases pending on the file of the Court of XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, (Banks and Financial Institutions) to the Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai, (Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act), where application filed by the second respondent, namely, Directorate of Enforcement, is pending - sanctioning housing loans/ additional housing loans without adhering to the basic Banking norms of pre-sanction requirements to various persons - Sections 120 (B), read with 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 as well as Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - The main ground on which the instant transfer sought for by the petitioners is that the the second respondent, namely, the Directorate of Enforcement, has also filed a private complaint before the Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act, i.e. Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai, which is constituted for trying the cases contemplated under the Act, 2002 and same has also been taken cognizance by the the Special Court for the aforesaid offences. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the second respondent has initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 2002, Special Court constituted for the said Act, i.e. Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, alone is competent to try the cases. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for allowing the petitions. Merely because private complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent before the Special Court with regard to Money laundering, it cannot be stated that the cases investigated by the CBI with regard to the aforesaid crime also have to be tried by the Special Court constituted under the Act, 2002. If such view has been taken by this Court, there will be unwarranted delay in entire criminal prosecution launched by the CBI before the concerned Court. The object of constituting a Special Court is only to speed up the trial with regard to money laundering - Admittedly, in the instant cases, the CBI has not charge sheeted the petitioners for the offence relating to money laundering as contemplated under the Act, 2002. That being the case, the relief sought for by the petitioners seeking to transfer of the aforesaid cases from the file of the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge for CBI cases, cannot be ordered merely because such cases also involve serious bank frauds. This Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the accused in allowing the trial to be continued in the CBI Court. That apart, even in a case and counter case arising out of the same transaction, there cannot be any common evidence and the evidence of each case, has to be assessed independently for deciding the same. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the evidence would be common in the CBI charge sheeted case as well as the case pending on the file of the Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering is not sustainable in law - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Transfer of criminal cases from CBI Court to Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Analysis:
The petitioners, accused in multiple cases, sought to transfer proceedings from the CBI Court to the Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The prosecution alleged a criminal conspiracy resulting in significant pecuniary loss to a bank. The Directorate of Enforcement filed a charge sheet under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioners argued that the Act allows for joint trials and transfer of proceedings to the Special Court, emphasizing common evidence and the need for coherence in trials.

The CBI opposed the transfer, contending that only scheduled offenses under the Act could be jointly tried in the Special Court. They argued that the charges framed by the CBI Court did not align with the Act's provisions, and no prejudice would arise from continuing the trial in the CBI Court. They highlighted the different stages of proceedings in the two courts and the potential for delay if transfers were allowed.

The court noted that the petitioners were charged with serious bank fraud offenses by the CBI, distinct from money laundering charges. While the Special Court for Money Laundering Act could try related offenses, the CBI's charges did not fall under the Act's purview. The court emphasized the need for expeditious trials and the specialization of the Special Court for money laundering cases, cautioning against unnecessary delays or overlapping jurisdictions.

Referring to Section 44 of the Act, the court clarified that only offenses under the Act and scheduled offenses could be tried in the Special Court. As the CBI had not charged the petitioners with money laundering offenses, the transfer to the Special Court was deemed inappropriate. The court highlighted the independence of evidence in separate cases and the potential prejudice to both prosecution and accused if transfers were granted. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitions, emphasizing the importance of proceeding with ongoing trials without undue delay or disruption.