2018 (8) TMI 1024 - HC - Money Laundering

A complaint under Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C., which is a scheduled offence under Money Laundering Act, was filed against the respondents before the court of metropolitan magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts. - With regard to money laundering, a complaint was filed by the petitioner, which is being tried by Special Judge, Patiala House Courts, under the Money Laundering Act. Held that - The Complaint Case No.123/1/2013 under Sections 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Patiala House Court, under the Money Laundering Act before whom the Complaint Case No.04/2015 titled B.K. Singh, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement versus Surajpal @ Chacha & Others under the Money Laundering Act is pending. The said Court shall, on receipt of the case, deal with it from the stage at which it is committed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing a petition.
2. Impugning orders transferring a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Interpretation of Section 44(1)(c) of the Money Laundering Act regarding transfer of cases to Special Court.

Condonation of Delay:
The petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing a petition due to the need to consult various administrative authorities. The court, after considering the reasons provided and arguments presented, granted the condonation of delay, allowing the application.

Transfer of Case under Money Laundering Act:
The Directorate of Enforcement challenged orders transferring a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. A complaint under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, which is a scheduled offence under the Money Laundering Act, was filed against the respondents. The petitioner filed an application seeking transfer of the case to the Special Court handling money laundering offences. The District & Sessions Judge initially transferred the case back to the Metropolitan Magistrate, leading to subsequent review and recommitment to the Special Court. The petitioner contended that Section 44(1)(c) of the Money Laundering Act mandates transfer to the Special Court that took cognizance of the money laundering complaint. The court held that any Special Court empowered by notification under the Act is not the intended recipient of transferred cases, emphasizing the specific Special Court handling the money laundering complaint. The impugned orders were set aside, and the case was transferred to the Special Judge where the money laundering case was pending.

Interpretation of Section 44(1)(c) of Money Laundering Act:
The court analyzed Section 44(1)(c) of the Money Laundering Act, emphasizing the requirement to transfer cases to the specific Special Court handling the money laundering complaint. Even if a scheduled offence case was pending before another Special Court under the Act, transfer to the designated Special Court for money laundering cases is necessary. The court concluded that the impugned orders suffered from material irregularity and set them aside, directing the transfer of the Wildlife Act case to the Special Judge handling the money laundering case.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, directing the transfer of the Wildlife Act case to the designated Special Judge dealing with money laundering cases, emphasizing the specific court handling the money laundering complaint as per the provisions of the Money Laundering Act.