9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 247 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - violation of undertaking of captive mining for the grant of Mining Lease - violation of environmental laws - section 3 read with section 70 which is punishable under section 4 of the Act of 2002 - territorial jurisdiction - petition filed at Patna - jurisdiction of State of Bihar for the said complaint - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that C.B.I case was filed in the year 2016 in which the charge-sheet has not been submitted as yet the authority concerned had filed petition at Patna wherein the Hon'ble Patna High Court has held that the State of Bihar has got no jurisdiction for the said complaint and directed to return the complaint copy to the complainant and thereafter the case in hand has been filed at Ranchi. There is no doubt that the petitioner's lease is being governed under the Act of 1957. The provisions placed by Mr. Luthra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner under the said Act are statutory in nature and action under that Act is open to be taken by the authority prescribed under that Act. The application of special law and the Indian Penal Code are well settled as has been argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. But, it must be in the facts and circumstances of each case. Section 2(1)(y) of the Act of 2002 defined the scheduled offences under the Act in Part-A and Part-B and in the schedule section 120B and section 420 are provided. Thus, it cannot be said that cheating is not prescribed under the scheduled of section 2(1)(y) of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the C.B.I has registered the case under section 120B and 420 of the IPC - In view of own admission of the officers of the company about the export, at this stage, it cannot be held that the petitioner was not exported the iron ore. Moreover, when undertaking to that effect has been submitted by the petitioner that iron ore will be used for own industry only. Explanation to section 3 of P.M.L.A Act which has been added later on stated that process or activity connected with proceeds of crime continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of the crime, accordingly the entire process/activity connected to the proceeds of crime is a continuing offence - In the case in hand, it cannot be said that at this stage, in absence of trial where the facts are hazy when initial action itself was not in consonance with law. Moreover, it is crystal clear that the object of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice. The exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction is an exception, but not a rule of law. There is no straitjacket formula nor defined parameters to enable a Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court requires to be very cautious while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The expression 'cognizance' has not been defined in the Code. Cognizance merely means 'become aware of' and when used with reference to Court or a Judge, it cannot 'to take notice of judicially'. The Court is not required to make a roving enquiry, and discuss the evidences for coming to a conclusion that no prima-facie case is made out, at this stage, which is against the mandate of law - application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the impugned order dated 20.05.2021. 2. Alleged violation of mining laws and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 3. Jurisdiction of the Patna High Court and subsequent transfer of the case to Ranchi. 4. Application of special laws versus general laws (IPC) in the context of mining and money laundering. 5. Validity of the summoning order and the application of judicial mind. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of the Impugned Order Dated 20.05.2021: The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 20.05.2021, which summoned the petitioner and other accused to appear before the court. The petitioner's counsel argued that the cognizance taken by the court was against well-settled provisions of law and was a result of non-application of mind. The petitioner contended that the allegations had already been settled by a previous judgment in the case of Krishnanand Tripathi v. State of Jharkhand, which affirmed the sale/export of iron ore fines and set aside the restrictions imposed by the Government of Jharkhand. 2. Alleged Violation of Mining Laws and PMLA: The complaint alleged that the petitioner violated its undertaking of captive mining and sold/exported iron ore mined, despite the undertaking. It also alleged that officials violated mining laws, environmental laws, and various rules. However, the impugned complaint only referred to the violation of mining laws and PMLA, dropping allegations related to environmental laws. The petitioner argued that the sale and export of iron ore were within the applicable laws and regulations, and no restrictions were imposed by the State Government at the time. The petitioner also contended that the proceedings under PMLA were initiated mechanically and without application of mind, solely based on the contents of the CBI FIR. 3. Jurisdiction of the Patna High Court and Subsequent Transfer of the Case to Ranchi: The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Patna trial court, which led to the Patna High Court quashing the complaint and all proceedings emanating from it. The Patna High Court directed the complaint to be handed over to the appropriate court with jurisdiction, leading to the filing of the present complaint in Ranchi. The petitioner argued that the present complaint was a verbatim reproduction of the Patna ED Complaint, with the addition of an offence. 4. Application of Special Laws versus General Laws (IPC) in the Context of Mining and Money Laundering: The petitioner argued that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) is a special act and a complete code, and thus, the IPC and other general laws should not apply. The petitioner relied on the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government (NCT of Delhi), which held that when a special law is there, it shall prevail over general and prior laws like IPC. However, the court noted that Section 2(1)(y) of the PMLA includes offences under Sections 120B and 420 IPC in its schedule, and thus, the authorities concerned are empowered to take action under PMLA. 5. Validity of the Summoning Order and Application of Judicial Mind: The petitioner contended that the summoning order was a result of non-application of mind and lacked sufficient indication of judicial satisfaction. The petitioner relied on the cases of Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and Others and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, which emphasized that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter affecting one's dignity and reputation, and the order must reflect the application of mind. However, the court found that the learned court had discussed the allegations in detail and taken cognizance based on the evidence presented, thus negating the petitioner's argument. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality in the summoning order. It held that the allegations in the complaint warranted a trial, and the special provisions of the MMDR Act did not bar the application of IPC and PMLA in the present case. The court emphasized that the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be cautious and restrained, and the facts of the case did not warrant interference at this stage.
|
