9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 988 - HC - Money LaunderingJurisdiction - power to initiate proceedings as against the Petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act - possession of proceeds of crime - predicate offence or not - provisional attachment of properties - alleged offences under Section 4(d) and 4(f) of the Lotteries Regulation Act and Rule 4(5) of the Lotteries Regulation Rules - HELD THAT - The petitioner wanted to say that by virtue of the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the substratum of the case has been lost and that he is not in possession of any proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(u) of the PML Act. He wanted to make this Court believe that on account of the order of discharge, charge of generation of proceeds of crime is totally eliminated and he is not liable to be proceeded against - But after having gone through the materials on record and the detailed and erudite arguments of learned counsel on both sides, there are no doubt in mind that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in his favour. Even though the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granted only partial discharge of the charges levelled against the petitioner, he has stated that by virtue of the order, the substratum of proceedings initiated by the respondents against him has been lost. There is no legal or factual basis in the contention. It is true that offences under the Lottery (Regulation) Act or Lottery (Regulation) Rules are not predicate offences under the PML Act. Similarly, offences under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC were inserted by amendment dated 01.06.2009. It is also clear that the partnership firm in which the petitioner was a partner had been in the lottery business for the period from 31.12.2007 to 13.06.2010. That means, at the time when he had left the lottery business on 13.06.2010, offence under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC were brought in as scheduled offences under the PML Act - the specific case of the CBI is that the first accused Santiago Martin, the proprietor of Future Gaming Solutions India Private Limited had sold tickets to the third accused, M/s. Future Gaming Solutions India Private Limited (formerly Martin Lottery Agencies,) during the period from 31.12.2007 to 04.04.2010. It is the well settled proposition of law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be requested to pursue that remedy and not to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It is true that existence of a statutory remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ. The PML Act is a self contained code. It provides sufficient safeguards preventing excessive acts from the side of the Director. If prima facie materials are made out, the appropriate authorities can be approached with a provisional order of attachment as provided under Section 5 of the PML Act followed by adjudication for confiscation of the proceeds of the crime - The petitioner has no case that procedural safeguards are violated and he is being proceeded against arbitrarily. Thus he has approached the Madras High Court at the threshold hastily, overlooking the procedures provided in the PML Act. When the Writ Petition was dismissed finding that it is not maintainable, he has approached this Court a second time, almost on the same lines. He has neither resorted to the remedies available under the PML Act nor chose to approach the Apex Court, challenging the correctness of that decision. There is also considerable force in the submission that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. On initiation of proceedings under Exts.P2 to P4, he had hurriedly approached the Madras High Court and obtained interim orders in 2015. The Writ Petition was dismissed on 08.02.2021. Immediately thereafter he approached this Court without realising or conveniently ignoring the message given by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. Even though it was made clear that he is bound to face trial in respect of the remaining offences, he has approached the court as though entire proceeds of the crime are wiped out by the order of discharge, which is unfounded. Even now he has not prepared to resort to the remedies available under the PML Act, which is not understandable - Even though it was necessary that the lottery should have been printed either in Government press or in presses recognised by Indian Bank Association, all lotteries were printed in some private press in Sivakasi in Tamil Nadu for sale by the 1st accused Santiago Martin and his aids. It may be true that the petitioner had been in the field only for three years, the respondents have reasons to believe that he was part of the larger conspiracy at least during the period between 31.12.2007 to 13.06.2010. By that time, the offences under Sections 120B and 420 IPC were incorporated in the schedule of offence. It appears that the petitioner wants to prolong the matter one way or the other. After failing to get any relief from the Madras High Court he has approached this Court raising almost same contentions, which are barred by principles of issue of estoppel and cause of action estoppel. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Respondents to Initiate Proceedings under PMLA. 2. Legality of Provisional Attachment Order. 3. Maintainability of Writ Petition in Light of Alternative Remedies. 4. Impact of Discharge Order on Proceedings under PMLA. 5. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy and Cheating. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Respondents to Initiate Proceedings under PMLA: The petitioner argued that Respondents 2 and 3 lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) since he was discharged from offences under the Lotteries Regulation Act (LR Act) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. However, the court found that the petitioner still faces charges under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC, which are scheduled offences under PMLA. The court noted that the petitioner’s involvement in the lottery business continued after these offences were included in the PMLA schedule, thus justifying the initiation of proceedings. 2. Legality of Provisional Attachment Order: The petitioner challenged the provisional attachment of his properties under Section 5 of the PMLA. The court upheld the attachment, noting that the properties were allegedly acquired through proceeds of crime. The court emphasized that the petitioner must face trial for the remaining charges, and the attachment was a necessary step to prevent further dissipation of assets. 3. Maintainability of Writ Petition in Light of Alternative Remedies: The court highlighted that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy under the PMLA, including appeals to the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. Citing the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, the court reiterated that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of statutory remedies. The court stressed the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when alternative remedies exist, unless in exceptional circumstances. 4. Impact of Discharge Order on Proceedings under PMLA: The petitioner contended that the discharge order eliminated the basis for PMLA proceedings. However, the court clarified that the discharge was only partial, and the petitioner still faced charges under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC. The court ruled that the discharge from LR Act offences did not affect the proceedings under PMLA, as the remaining charges were sufficient to justify the continuation of the case. 5. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy and Cheating: The court examined the allegations of conspiracy and cheating involving the petitioner and other accused. It was alleged that the accused defrauded the Sikkim Government by not remitting the full sale proceeds of lottery tickets and manipulating data. The court noted that these allegations were serious and involved significant amounts of money. The court emphasized that these matters required a thorough trial, and the petitioner’s partial discharge did not absolve him of all charges. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner must face trial for the remaining charges. The court upheld the jurisdiction of the respondents to initiate proceedings under PMLA and validated the provisional attachment of properties. The court reiterated the principle of exhausting alternative remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction and found no exceptional circumstances to deviate from this rule. The court also highlighted the seriousness of the allegations and the need for a detailed trial to address the charges of conspiracy and cheating.
|
