2017 (3) TMI 690 - HC - Money Laundering

Maintainability of Revision petition under Section 397 r/w.401 Cr.P.C - Held that - Section 397(1) Cr.P.C empowers High Court and Sessions court to call for and examine the records of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. Sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. But Section 397 (2) imposed a bar for exercising the revisional jurisdiction in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. Whether the order passed by the court below dismissing the petition filed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C seeking default bail is an interlocutory order or final order? - Held that - The order of rejecting the plea of the accused seeking bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C will not conclude the above proceedings, as the right of the petitioners to come out on bail was not finally determined by the Special Court. In Amar Nath s case(1977 (7) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT), the Hon ble Supreme court has specifically held that passing any orders in a bail petition is only an interlocutory, against which, no revision would lie under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. In the above circumstances, have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the Special Court rejecting the petitiners application is only an interlocutory order, and in view of the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C, petitioners cannot maintain a revision petition, before this Court. This revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C to cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act).
2. Maintainability of the revision petition under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C against the order of the Special Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C to cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act):

The petitioners were arrested in connection with an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and were confined in judicial custody. They sought statutory default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C on the grounds that the respondent did not file a complaint within the 60-day statutory period. The Special Court dismissed this application, holding that Section 167(2) Cr.P.C is not applicable to cases under the PML Act. The petitioners contended that Section 65 of the PML Act makes the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code applicable to PML Act proceedings unless inconsistent with the PML Act. They argued that the failure to file a complaint within the statutory period granted them an indefeasible right to default bail. The petitioners relied on judgments from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court, which supported the applicability of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C to similar special statutes like the NDPS Act. However, the respondent countered that the PML Act does not specify a time limit for filing a complaint, unlike the NDPS Act, and cited a Supreme Court judgment (Jeewan Kumar Raut vs. CBI) to argue that Section 167(2) Cr.P.C is not applicable to PML Act proceedings.

2. Maintainability of the revision petition under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C against the order of the Special Court:

The court first had to decide whether the revision petition against the Special Court's order was maintainable. Section 397(2) Cr.P.C bars the exercise of revisional jurisdiction in relation to interlocutory orders. The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments to define what constitutes an interlocutory order. An interlocutory order is one that does not decide the rights and liabilities of the parties and is of a temporary nature. The court concluded that the Special Court's order dismissing the petition for default bail was an interlocutory order because it did not finally determine the petitioners' right to bail. Consequently, the revision petition was not maintainable under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The court noted that previous judgments cited by the petitioners did not address the maintainability issue and thus could not be relied upon. Since the revision petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability, the court did not consider the merits of the case.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition as not maintainable, emphasizing that the order of the Special Court was interlocutory and thus barred from revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The court did not delve into the merits regarding the applicability of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C to PML Act cases due to the maintainability issue.