9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1267 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Scheduled offences - respondents were well within their jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against them under the provisions of the PMLA or not - Constitutional validity of the provisions of the PMLA - HELD THAT - The same has been finally decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others vs. Union of India and others, 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT . A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has upheld the constitutional validity of various provisions of the PMLA. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case being binding upon this Court, as such, there is no scope for this Court to re-open the issue. In the instant case, the petitioners are facing trial for various offences under ULA(P) Act whereas the respondents have initiated proceedings against them for offences under the PMLA. So, the petitioners are neither being prosecuted nor punished for the same offence. The offences under ULA(P) Act are quite distinct from the offence under the PMLA. The Supreme Court has in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary s case 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT , while interpreting the provisions contained in Section 3 of the PMLA, which defines the offence of money laundering observed involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute offence of money-laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime. From a perusal of the observation of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is an independent offence distinct from the offences under ULA(P) Act which has been incorporated in the Schedule to the PMLA - it is also clear that merely because the predicate offence in the instant case dates back to a period when such offence was not incorporated in the Schedule to the PLMA, it cannot be stated that that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence under the PMLA. The petitioners besides facing trial for the offences under ULA(P) Act, are also facing trial for offence under Section 121-A of RPC. The offence under Section 121-A of IPC, which is in pari materia with Section 121-A of the RPC, was a scheduled offence even prior to the Amendment Act of 2009. On this ground also, the petitioners cannot claim that they could not have been prosecuted for offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. There are no merit in these petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.
Issues Involved:
Three writ petitions challenging provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and proceedings initiated against the petitioners, including summoning orders and interference in cases investigated by J&K Police. Constitutional Validity of PMLA: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the PMLA in a previous case, making it binding on this Court. No scope to re-open the issue. Double Jeopardy Argument: Petitioners claimed double jeopardy as they were facing trial under ULA(P) Act and PMLA for similar allegations. However, the Supreme Court clarified that money laundering is an independent offence distinct from ULA(P) Act offences. Applicability of Article 20(2) of the Constitution: Article 20(2) protects against double jeopardy, prohibiting prosecution and punishment for the same offence more than once. In this case, petitioners are not being prosecuted or punished for the same offence. Schedule Inclusion and Prosecution under PMLA: Even if the predicate offence predates its addition to the PMLA schedule, if a person deals with proceeds of crime after it becomes a scheduled offence, they can be prosecuted for money laundering. Offences under ULA(P) Act and RPC: Petitioners facing trial for ULA(P) Act offences and Section 121-A of RPC. Section 121-A of IPC was a scheduled offence before the Amendment Act of 2009, supporting prosecution under PMLA. Conclusion: The Court found no merit in the petitions and dismissed them, vacating any interim orders.
|
