9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 530 - HC - Money LaunderingJurisdiction - power of Special Courts constituted under Section 43 of the PMLA to try an offence punishable under the PC Act - HELD THAT - Both, the PC Act as well as PMLA, are in one sense special enactments. The PC Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law related to prevention of corruption and for all matters connected therewith. It specifies the offences as well as the penalties that can be imposed. The PC Act also contains special provisions with regard to investigation of cases under the PC Act as well as contains provisions regarding the procedure to be followed. In terms of Section 22 of the PC Act, the Cr.PC would be applicable subject to the modifications as specified therein - The principle that a special act overrides a general act is not applicable in the present case. PC Act and PMLA are both special statutes in their own fields. Both relate to different offences and none of the two enactments can be considered as general or special in relation to the other. Thus, the question whether the provisions of Section 44(1)(a) and Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA have to be given effect to despite being repugnant to Section 4(1) of the PC Act must be considered keeping in view other principles. The purpose and objective of including provisions to ensure that the Special Courts under the PMLA also have the jurisdiction to try scheduled offences is obvious when one examines the nature of the offence of money laundering. The said offence is described in Section 3 of the PMLA, which provides that whoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or is otherwise party in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as an untainted property, shall be guilty of committing an offence of money laundering. It is not necessary that persons accused of committing an offence of money laundering be also accused of committing the predicate scheduled offence. Nonetheless, the said accused cannot be convicted of committing an offence of money laundering unless the existence of a scheduled offence is established. In cases where the allegation of commission of an offence of money laundering against a person is founded on the allegation that he had committed a scheduled offence; it would follow that he cannot be convicted of an offence of money laundering, unless it is established that he is guilty of committing the predicate scheduled offence. The link between the offence of money laundering and the predicate scheduled offence is inextricable. In such circumstances, it stands to reason that in a given case, it would be expedient if the same Court tries the scheduled offence as well as the offence for money laundering in the interest of consistency and to avoid any possible conflict of opinion. The contention that cases relating to scheduled offences punishable under the PC Act (as specified in Paragraph 8 of Part A of the Schedule to the PMLA) cannot be tried by the Special Courts designated under the PMLA, which are trying the interlinked offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, for want of jurisdiction to do so, cannot be accepted - there is no ambiguity in the language of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA. The concerned court, which is trying the scheduled offence, is required to transfer the same to the Special Court designated under the PMLA, on an application moved by the authority, authorised to make a complaint under the PMLA. This is provided that the said Special Court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under the PMLA. This Court finds no infirmity with the impugned order - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Special Court (PMLA) to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). 2. Interpretation of non-obstante clauses in the PC Act and PMLA. 3. Applicability of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA in transferring cases. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Special Court (PMLA) to Try Offences Under the PC Act: The primary issue is whether the Special Courts constituted under Section 43 of the PMLA have jurisdiction to try offences punishable under the PC Act. The petitioner argued that a Special Court under the PMLA is not competent to try offences under the PC Act, as Section 4 of the PC Act mandates that only Judges appointed under Section 3 of the PC Act can try such offences. This argument was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in P. Nallamal and Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, which emphasized the exclusivity of jurisdiction conferred upon Special Judges under the PC Act. 2. Interpretation of Non-Obstante Clauses in the PC Act and PMLA: The court examined the non-obstante clauses in both the PC Act and the PMLA. Section 4(1) of the PC Act contains a non-obstante clause that overrides any other law in force, emphasizing that offences under the PC Act shall be tried only by Special Judges appointed under the PC Act. Conversely, Section 44(1) of the PMLA also contains a non-obstante clause, which indicates that the PMLA would override any inconsistent provision of the Cr.PC. The court clarified that the non-obstante clause in Section 44(1) of the PMLA does not control the plain meaning of its various clauses and does not limit the applicability of the PMLA to only those provisions inconsistent with the Cr.PC. 3. Applicability of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA in Transferring Cases: Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA requires that if a court other than the Special Court has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence, it shall commit the case to the Special Court upon application by the authorized authority. The court noted that the explanation introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, clarified that the trial of both sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as a joint trial, thereby allowing the Special Court under the PMLA to try predicate offences separately. The court emphasized that the Special Court under the PMLA has jurisdiction to try scheduled offences, including those under the PC Act, if they are connected to the offence of money laundering. Reasons and Conclusion: The court concluded that the provisions of Section 44(1)(a) and 44(1)(c) of the PMLA must be given effect despite being repugnant to Section 4(1) of the PC Act. It reasoned that the objective of enabling the same court to try both the offences of money laundering and the predicate scheduled offence would be served, and there would be no conflict with the legislative intent. The court also noted that the Special Judges designated under the PMLA are qualified to try cases under the PC Act, and there is no reason to believe that the legislative object of the PC Act would not be served if the trial is conducted by a Special Judge under the PMLA. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the transfer of the case to the Special Court (PMLA) at Patiala House Courts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order.
|
