2019 (11) TMI 253 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled offences - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is a complete code in itself dealing with the offence of money-laundering. It provides complete mechanism for investigation by an independent agency other than the police, in respect of offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act - It is clear that unless and until there is a case registered under a scheduled offence, Enforcement Directorate shall not have cause of action to institute proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act which means that registration of ECIR by Enforcement Directorate can be only after registration of case for a scheduled offence. ECIR is the information recorded by the Enforcement Directorate regarding the registration of predicate offences and is basis for initiating their investigation. It is also not in dispute that no FIR has been registered regarding schedule offence till date. Therefore, it is clear that Enforcement Directorate cannot conduct investigation in the present case in the absence of registration of FIR regarding schedule offences - the learned Trial Court opined on the same analogy that the Special Court cannot pass direction under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to Enforcement Directorate to register FIR. The second question before the learned Trial Court was that whether the Trial Court can entertain complaint filed by private party for the offence committed under Prevention of Money Laundering Act. On this issue, Section 44 (b) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act clearly stipulate that Special Court may upon a complaint made by an authority authorised in this behalf under this Act take cognizance of offence under section 3. Further, second proviso to Section 45, Prevention of Money Laundering Act makes it clear that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of offence under section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by the Director; or any officer of Central Government or State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by Central Government. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking to set aside an order, Maintainability of criminal complaint, Interpretation of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Jurisdiction of the Court, Entertaining complaint by a private party.

Analysis:
1. Petition to set aside order: The petitioner sought direction to set aside an order passed by the Special Judge, alleging violations related to a land allotment project. The Trial Court observed violations by the accused, leading to offences under various laws. The petitioner argued that the complexity of the crime necessitated investigation to uncover the truth and identify the roles of individuals involved. However, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint as not maintainable.

2. Interpretation of Prevention of Money Laundering Act: The Court examined the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, emphasizing that it is a comprehensive law dealing with money laundering offences. It highlighted that Enforcement Directorate's action is dependent on the registration of a case for scheduled offences. As no FIR had been filed for scheduled offences, the Enforcement Directorate lacked the authority to conduct an investigation in this case.

3. Jurisdiction of the Court: The Trial Court also considered the jurisdictional aspect, noting that the alleged offences occurred in Gurugram, Haryana, falling outside the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court. It concluded that no direction could be issued to the police as the matter was beyond its territorial jurisdiction.

4. Entertaining complaint by a private party: The Court analyzed the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which specify that a Special Court can only take cognizance of offences under specific circumstances, such as upon a complaint by an authorized authority. It clarified that the Court cannot entertain a complaint filed by a private party for offences under the said Act.

5. Validity of the impugned order: Considering the legal provisions and the specific circumstances of the case, the Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. It dismissed the petition, stating that the allegations lacked specificity and failed to establish a legal basis for further action.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the complexities of the criminal complaint, the legal framework of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, jurisdictional limitations, and the parameters for entertaining complaints under the Act. The Court's detailed analysis and interpretation of the law provide clarity on the issues raised in the petition, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petition.