2020 (2) TMI 1017 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Scheduled Offences - compliance with the provisions of Section 44(1)(c) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - The jurisdiction of Special Court, while dealing with the offence under the provisions of the Act, during investigation, inquiry or trial shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offence. It is also clarified that the trial of both sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as a joint trial. There is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below with the observation that the court has no jurisdiction to direct the agency to move any specific application while rejecting the application B-11 filed by the applicants with the prayer to issue necessary orders directing the Enforcement Directorate to comply the provisions of Section 44(1)(c) of the Act so as to give effect to the provisions in its true spirit. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order dated 18.06.2019 passed by Special Judge, PMLA/Sessions Judge, Lucknow
2. Compliance with the provisions of Section 44(1)(c) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

Analysis:
1. The application sought to quash the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Special Judge, PMLA/Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 9 of 2017. The charge sheet was filed under various sections including Section 120-B, 420, 409 I.P.C., and Section 13(2) of P.C. Act. The Enforcement Directorate filed ECIR No. ECIR/05/PMLA/LZO/2012 under the PML Act, leading to the registration of Complaint Case No. 9 of 2017. The applicant contended that the trial for the scheduled offence was pending in the court of Special Judge C.B.I./ NRHM, Ghaziabad, and thus, the trial for the money laundering offence should also be conducted there. The court examined the provisions of Section 44 of the Act, emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the Special Court is independent of any orders related to the scheduled offence, and a joint trial of both offences is not implied.

2. The applicant moved an application seeking direction for the Enforcement Directorate to comply with Section 44(1)(c) of the Act. The respondent argued that the court had no jurisdiction to direct the agency to file a specific application. The court referred to a previous order disposing of a similar application, highlighting the need for the applicant to follow the appropriate legal procedures. The court found no illegality in the impugned order, emphasizing that the Special Court's jurisdiction is not dependent on directing specific applications by rejecting the applicant's plea to comply with Section 44(1)(c) of the Act.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application, upholding the impugned order and emphasizing the independence of the Special Court's jurisdiction in dealing with offences under the PML Act.