2023 (10) TMI 533 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Refusal to discharge the petitioner / A.1 - Conspiracy with other accused - receiving the keys of bank locker wherein the bribe amount was secreted by A.2 through his son - contention of the petitioner is that by the date of the alleged incident the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 viz., Act 2 of 2013 was not even promulgated and did not come into force. HELD THAT - Section 3 of the Act does not attract to the case of the petitioner is concerned, the Hon ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT , the amendment to the Act is only in the nature of clarificatory and that the said amendment shall have the effect from the date of enactment of the PML Act, 2002 - Though the said amendment has come into force on 15.02.2013, nowhere in the Act it was stated that it is only prospective in nature. But it is only in the nature of clarificatory. It is an admitted fact that the investigation reveals that huge sum of untainted money was recovered from the locker of A.2 and the petitioner is having custody of the keys of the said locker which stands in the name of A.2. Therefore, the explanation given in the above section does attract to the case of the petitioner herein though it the amendment came into force from 15.02.2013 onwards since he is indirectly involved in the alleged crime. As seen from the record, there was an agreement between A.2 and A.1 and A.3 with regard to grant of bail, which itself shows the complicity of the case. The respondents have filed voluminous evidence in the form of documents, which have to be gone through during the course of trial only. The criminal revision case is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves the refusal to discharge the petitioner in a criminal case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 based on the alleged conspiracy to receive bribe money from a bank locker.

Summary:
The petitioner, accused No.1 in the case, sought discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. contending that most witnesses did not implicate him in the alleged conspiracy. However, the Enforcement Directorate argued that there was substantial documentary evidence linking the petitioner to the crime through his possession of the keys to the bank locker where bribe money was hidden. The petitioner's counsel raised a legal point that the PML Act, 2002 was amended in 2013, and the alleged offense occurred before the amendment, thus the Act did not apply. The court, citing a Supreme Court decision, clarified that the amendment was clarificatory and had retrospective effect, making the petitioner liable under Section 3 of the Act. The court noted the agreement between the accused regarding bail and the evidence presented, concluding that the petitioner's involvement was evident, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.

This judgment highlights the application of legal provisions, retrospective effect of amendments, and the significance of documentary evidence in determining complicity in a criminal case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.