2024 (8) TMI 1215 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking recall of the Judgment - petition has been dismissed without dealing with any of the grounds raised by the petitioner and without dealing with the submissions made in the written submissions which were placed on record - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the decision of the Apex Court in VIJAY BHATIA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2023 (5) TMI 1375 - SUPREME COURT has deprecated the practice of filing Writ Petitions challenging the validity of Section 50 of the Act despite its validity having been decided in VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT . It is observed that before concluding, that the prayer made in both the Writ Petitions was to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 50 PMLA. It paragraph 84 of the impugned Order, reference has been made to the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. UOI wherein the Three Judge Bench of Apex Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 50 of PMLA. Therefore, the relief sought may have existed at the time when the petition was filed in 2019, but with the findings of the Apex Court as mentioned above, the relief stood answered and satisfied. It is concluded that there were only typographical errors in the impugned Order which hereby stand rectified. There is no ground for recall of the impugned Order, as has also been conceded by Ld. Senior Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recall of judgment in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 2903/2019 under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner filed an application seeking the recall of the judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 2903/2019. The application highlighted that the Writ Petition was dismissed without addressing the grounds raised by the petitioner or the submissions made in the written submissions. The petitioner raised crucial questions of law regarding the reinvestigation by the Respondent/ED and the entitlement of a person accused under Sections 3 and 4 PMLA to protection under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 25 Indian Evidence Act in case of Summons issued under Section 50 PMLA. The petitioner also pointed out prejudicial observations against them that were not relevant to the Writ Petition.

The respondent's counsel admitted that the petitioner was a witness in the PMLA case but an accused in the CBI case. The Court noted that factual errors had crept into the judgment, particularly in paragraphs 15, 76, 80, and 83, which needed correction. The corrections were made to rectify these errors, ensuring accuracy in the record.

The Court clarified that the findings attributed to it in the judgment were actually allegations made by the prosecution and not the Court's findings. It also addressed the petitioner's contention regarding the timing of the petition in relation to a Supreme Court judgment and the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 50 PMLA. The Court concluded that typographical errors were rectified, and there was no ground for recalling the judgment, as acknowledged by the petitioner's Senior Advocate.

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to challenge other reliefs sought in the Writ Petition before the appropriate forum and extended interim protection for three more weeks. The application for recall was disposed of, bringing the matter to a close.