2023 (7) TMI 112 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - seeking review of order of Supreme Court - SCN sought to be quashed on the ground that Bench constituted under clause (b) of sub-section (5) of section 6 of the PMLA, 2002, did not have a Judicial Member - HELD THAT - The Supreme Court in numerous judgments has held very clearly that such practice of filing application for modification/clarification of judgment rendered must be deprecated as in actual what it seeks is a review or revision of the judgment which is not permissible. In INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS 2011 (7) TMI 1109 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court examined whether a final judgment of the Supreme Court could be reopened by merely filing interlocutory applications. It was held that a final judgment cannot be reopened by merely filing interlocutory applications where all possible legal remedies have been fully exhausted. In the case before the Supreme Court two interlocutory applications had been filed after the Supreme Court had pronounced the judgment. It was held that permitting the parties to reopen the concluded judgments by filing repeated I.As is clearly an abuse of the process of law and would have a far reaching adverse impact on the administration of justice. It was open for the applicant to have preferred a review petition before the learned Single Judge or an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court or even a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 22.09.2015 within the prescribed time if they were not satisfied with it - Even if this Court was to consider the application for modification/clarification as one filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which is the inherent power of this Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice it cannot come to aid a litigant to abuse the process of administration of justice. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Validity of show cause notice under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Requirement of Judicial Member in Adjudicating Authority; Clarification on the appointment of Member (Judicial) and Member from the field of Law.

The judgment dated 22.09.2015 by the Single Judge of Sikkim High Court addressed a petition filed by an educational institution against the show cause notice issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002). The petition challenged the constitution of the Bench without a Judicial Member, contending that in cases involving serious questions of law and fact, a Judicial Member is essential in the Adjudicating Authority.

The Single Judge directed the Directorate of Enforcement to urgently appoint a Judicial Member, constitute a Bench with a Judicial Member, and allow the petitioner to present grievances. The judgment also excluded the period of attachment during the case's pendency before the Court. An application for clarification was later filed by the Joint Director, seeking clarity on the distinction between Member (Judicial) and Member from the field of Law in the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA, 2002.

The application highlighted the reconstitution of the Bench with a Member from the field of Law, subsequent proceedings, and the Appellate Tribunal's orders for rehearing with a Judicial Member. The Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the attachment order was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing the necessity of a Judicial Member as directed by the Court.

The Deputy Solicitor General argued that the PMLA, 2002 does not mandate a Judicial Member in the Adjudicating Authority, citing a Supreme Court judgment on literal interpretation of statutes. The application sought modification of the 2015 judgment, proposing the use of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to make necessary amendments.

The Court dismissed the application, emphasizing that seeking modification or clarification of a final judgment through interlocutory applications is impermissible. It highlighted Supreme Court precedents discouraging such practices, stating that legal remedies should be exhausted through proper channels like review petitions or appeals. The Court rejected the attempt to reopen the judgment after almost eight years, deeming it an abuse of the legal process and denying the application for modification or clarification.