9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny statutory obligation and it is not a Court of Law or a Judicial Tribunal, in the considered opinion of this Court. Moreover, the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is not trying a criminal case. But only decides the effect of breach of obligations by the concerned. Respondent has issued show cause notices/summons dated 10.04.2013 to the Petitioners in question based on authority in terms of Section 50(2) and (3) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act and ordinarily, the parties are to project their case or place their case before the authority. Viewed in that perspective, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the issuance of summons dated 10.04.2013 by the Respondent to the Petitioners. Consequently, the Writ Petitions fail. - W.P.Nos.14083 to 14085 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1, 2, and 3 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 25-9-2013 - M. VENUGOPAL J. For the Petitioners: Mr. V.T. Gopalan, Senior Counsel, Mr. P.S. Raman, Senior Counsel for M/s. Nathan and Associates and Mr. A. Ramesh, Senior Counsel for M/s. Yuvaraj Mohan kumar For the Respondent: M. Dhandapani ORDER The Petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petitions praying fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trial Court. The defacto complainant/informant filed Criminal O.P.No.14032 of 2011 for further investigation which was allowed by this Court on 28.09.2011 where a direction was issued to the C.B.C.I.D., Chennai to conduct further investigation. As against the said order passed in the Crl.O.P.No.14032 of 2011, the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.14083 of 2013 along with two other accused preferred a petition to grant Special Leave to Appeal in SLP.Crl.No.8160/2011, 8313/2011 and 8317/2011 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant stay of operation of the impugned order passed in the Crl.O.P.No.14032 of 2011. As such, the trial in C.C.No.88 of 2011 on the file of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is pending as on date. (iii)Under the above background, a separate complaint was lodged by the husband of the Petitioner in W.P.No.14083 of 2013 against the defacto complainant and 21 others on 02.07.2010 before the Reserve Bank of India and various authorities including the Directorate of Enforcement. Since no action was taken by the authorities concerned, Criminal Original Petition No.19095 of 2010 was fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riated without the permission of The Reserve Bank of India. (iv)Since even after the orders passed in Crl.O.P.No.19095 of 2010 by this Court, the State Police had not initiated action to investigate in a right direction, the said Mohan was forced to file a original petition before this Court seeking transfer of investigation to any other competent agency or C.B.I. in Crl.O.P.No.4739 of 2011. The State Police in their status report attempted to state that it is a fit case to try before a Civil Court and this Court rejected the said view and passed the following interim order in Crl.O.P.No.4739 of 2011 which runs as under: 6. Given the above, this Court considers it appropriate that the respondents strictly follow the orders of this Court, dated 08.12.2010 and in keeping there with the enquiry order by this Court shall be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Chennai. Such enquiry shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order and to file the report before this Court on or before 11.07.2011. (v)Finally, the State Police registered a case in Crime No.450 of 2011 and there is no progress in the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court was pleased to stay the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.14032 of 2011 dated 28.09.2011 wherein this Court had directed further investigation by the CBCID and as such, the issuance of summons is nothing but a colourable exercise of power by the authorities concerned. (x)The Petitioners urges before this Court that when Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code enables an Accused to compound the charge with the aggrieved/affected party and when a petition/ application is pending in this regard. The proposed investigation with reference to crime proceeds is unwarranted, illegal and against law. (xi)The grievance of the Petitioners is that when the accused facing with criminal charge before the trial Court, they do have every right to remain silent under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, it is pleaded on behalf of the Petitioners that if they are forced to give statement before the Directorate of Enforcement and the statement so made by them would turn against them and the same would restrict their rights as guaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the summons are liable to be quashed. (xii)Apart fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment that M/s.Al Tirven Steels, Chennai entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 20.12.2006 with M/s.IVR Prime Urban Developers Limited for the procurement of lands situated at Sandavellore and Papankuzhi Villages in Sriperambadur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu. The said two individuals viz., Mohan and Valluvan offered themselves that they could facilitate in the purchase of lands that were required to M/s.IVR Prime Urban Developers Limited. As agreed, the complainant Company gave ₹ 5.09 Crores to A.M. Mohan through 28 demand drafts relating to the period from 29.11.2007 and 04.12.2007 towards the purchase of land from one Sundarambal. The said Mohan and Valluvan paid only ₹ 2.65 Crores to P.Sundarambal for the purchase of 5.09 acres from her and the balance amount viz., 2.44 Crores was drawn in the form of demand drafts favouring Sundarambal were credited by way of impersonation with Karur Vysya Bank, Arumbakkam Branch, Chennai, with the assistance of Mohan's sister, Senthamarai into the Savings Bank Account No.128915500016195 and the said amount immediately transferred to the Current Account No.128913100000022 with the same Bank in the name of M/s.S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offences under Sections 419, 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for criminal activities. Inasmuch as the charged offences under Section 419, 420 I.P.C. 1860 were the Scheduled Offences under clause (1) of sub-section (y) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, the Respondent/ Directorate of Enforcement registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (referred to ECIR) bearing No.CEZO/2/2013 dated 26.03.2013 to carry out the investigation under PMLA against the Petitioners. (viii)The objects of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act are to ascertain the Proceeds of Crime which involved in Money-Laundering, subsequent attachment and confiscation of the same and also to punish the Money Laundering offenders. The Respondent/ Directorate of Enforcement is the Investigation Agency authorised to enforce the PMLA. After filing the ECIR on 26.03.2013 as per Section 50(2) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, the Respondent issued summons dated 10.04.2013 to the Petitioners whose presence was considered necessary for investigation purposes. (ix)The Petitioners through their letter dated 22.04.2013 intimated about the Interim Stay granted by the Hon'ble Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the interim stay order and also proceeding to pronounce a final order on 26.06.2012, is clearly in defiance of the interim stay order of this Court. Therefore, the whole proceedings are vitiated and even the order dated 26.6.2012 passing during the pendency of these Writ Petitions is illegal and are liable to be set aside as null and void. (iv)In the aforesaid decision, the present Respondent is a party. Further, the summons issued by the Respondent to the Petitioners are clearly ultra vires of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the Petitioners rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharathidasan University and another V. All India Council for Technical Education and others, (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 676. (v)Before the Criminal Court, the compromise petition/ application is still pending. The said petition/application has been filed by the aggrieved party and the accused persons (Petitioners herein). The effect of compounding the offence as per Section 320 (8) Cr.P.C. is that of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. The Petitioners/Accused and other accused have arrived at a compromise and accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndavellore Village and Papankuzhi village of Sriperambudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District dated 8.12.2006. (ii)One A.M. Mohan (the husband of the Petitioner in W.P.No.14083/2013) along with Valluvan (Petitioner in W.P.No.14085/ 2013) approached the Petitioner/Proposed 2nd Respondent and represented that they know the people of the village and offered to facilitate for procuring the aforesaid 600 acres for the Petitioner/ Proposed Respondent. Accordingly, the Petitioner/Proposed Respondent had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.08.2007 with the aforesaid A.M. Mohan. (iii)Initially, the aforesaid persons brought the purchasers and as per the terms of the Agreement, the Demand Drafts were given in the name of the owners/vendors of the land and obtained Power of Attorney in some cases and in other matters, the sale deed would be directly executed in favour of the said IVR Developers (iv)The aforesaid persons started bringing fictitious persons and obtained huge amounts from Petitioner's company by stating that the amounts were collected as advance. Since the amounts were issued by way of Cheques/Demand Drafts, the Petitioner/Proposed Respondent was in confid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing M.P.No.3 of 2013 to implead it as the Proposed 2nd Respondent in W.P.No.14083 of 2013 as necessary party. Contentions of Petitioners in W.P.Nos.14083 14084 of 2013: 7.It is the submission of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.Nos.14083 and 14084 of 2013 that the object of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 specifies that the proceeds will go to the Central Government and now the power is given to the Special Court and that Court has to say now as to whom the amount should be paid and also there is a provision for passing an order of interim attachment and notice is to be given and then only the attachment can be made absolute the Director has to file a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority and if a person is acquitted the property wold be returned to him as he belonged to him. 8.It is to be noted that the summons issued to the Petitioners under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 point out that the initial jurisdiction of the authority is only to clutch at the purported amount of money involved arising out of the alleged crime for which the Petitioners and others are accused. Further, in the case on hand, the person who h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Crores demand draft was taken in favour of Sundarambal and in this regard, the allegation is that it was not encashed by P.Sundarambal but it was encashed by Mohan's Sister Senthamarai etc. 12.At this stage, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P.No.14085/2013 makes a submission that normally the persons aggrieved would be the person in whose favour the money was taken by way of demand draft and in the instant case, P.Sundarambal (aggrieved person) had not given the complaint and instead, the complaint was made by a person who was remotely affected. 13.The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P.No. 14085 of 2013 brings it to the notice of this Court that A.M. Mohan earlier on 02.07.2010 gave a complaint to the authorities mentioned therein making a request to take action for recovery of the scheduled mentioned properties from the hands of land grabbers mentioned and to take appropriate action against them. 14.Also that, Crl.O.P.No.19095 of 2010 was filed by A.M. Mohan against 1.The Director General of Police, Chennai, 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City, Chennai 600 002 3.L.S.Abinesh Babu wherein a relief was sought for issuance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner submits that before the trial Court in C.C.No.88 of 2011 the compounding application is pending and at that time the Petitioner in W.P.No.14085 of 2013 received the summons and when the order in Crl.O.P.No.14032 of 2011 dated 28.09.2011 was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.8160 of 2011 with S.L.P.(Crl) No.8313/2011 and S.L.P. (Crl) No.8317/2011 on 14.11.2011, then, it is open to the Respondent/ Directorate of Enforcement to get impleaded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the teeth of the Hon'ble Supreme Court order (wherein the impugned order passed in Crl.O.P.No.14032 of 2011 dated 28.09.2011 was stayed until further orders), no summons could be issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner in W.P.No.14085 of 2013. 19.The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P.No.14085/2013 submits that the summon issued to the Petitioner is a blanket one and to issue summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.14085/2013 must be a third party who is unconnected with the criminal case or unconnected with the sale proceeds and in the summons, they have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Money-Laundering Act and that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable and in fact, they are to be dismissed. 23.At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent cites the decision of this Court reported in MANU/TN/3207/2009 between KA.Manshoor V. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India (W.P.No.2429 of 2009 decided on 24.11.2009) wherein in paragraphs 17 to 20, it is mentioned as follows: 17. Once again another Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Income-Tax Officer and others -vs- James Joseph O'Gorman reported in 1993 Vol.204 I.T.R. 454, referred to Dwijendralal Brahmachari's case (cited supra) and in page 458, it was observed as follows:- ''Under the circumstances, it appears that the issuance of such notice by the Income-tax Officer was without jurisdiction. It has been averred in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that in respect of proceedings which were pending similar notices were issued by the Income-tax Officer and those had been duly complied with. Under the circumstances, as very rightly observed by the learned court below, the Income-tax Officer was not entitled to exercise such power as a mere cloak for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onceived. 19. Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned special counsel for Enforcement Directorate submitted that the provisions of FEMA cannot be compared with the provisions of other enactments. Here the question of application of Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution does not arise. A person who is summoned to appear before the Enforcement Directorate is not an accused in a criminal case. The Supreme Court in Poolpandi -vs- Superintendent, Central Excise reported in 1992 (60) ELT 24 (SC) in dealing with the analogous provision of the Customs Act, held that the purpose of Customs Act or similar statute will be completely frustrated, if whims of the person in possession of useful information for the Department are allowed to prevail. The relevant provisions of the Constitution have to be construed in the spirit in which they were made and the benefits thereunder should not be expanded to favour the exploiters engaged in tax evasion at the cost of public exchequer and, therefore, such persons do not have the protection of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 20. He also referred to the judgment of this Court in T.T.V.Dinakaran -vs- Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uress. In fact it was held in that case that such a statement obtained does not infringe the constitutional guarantee of protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Therefore, the concept of applying the theory of self-incrimination even at the stage of investigation in case of violation of FEMA cannot be raised to the level of an investigation of a criminal offence protected by Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. 26. If it is seen in this context, then the attack made against the summons issued by the Department cannot be countenanced by this Court. The petitioner in essence seeks for a writ of prohibition against the department for having issued the summons by the exercise of the powers vested on them under section 37 read with section 131 of the Income Tax Act. In Standard Chartered Bank and others -vs- Directorate of Enforcement and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 278 which arose out of the FERA violation, the Supreme Court spelt out the parameters in entertaining a writ petition against initiation of adjudication proceedings. Para 25 of the said decision may be usefully extracted below:- ''25. The prayer for the issue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and the Courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice relative at this stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law'. 25.The pith and substance of the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent is that the summons to the Petitioners were issued as per Section 50(2) and (3) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act for the avowed object of gathering evidence during the investigation to ascertain the Proceeds of Crime be involved in Money-Laundering. Further, the charge sheet laid by the Police in C.C.No.88 of 2011 relates to the investigation for predicate offences committed for criminal acts and it does not relate to the 'Proceeds of Crime'. In effect, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent is that the Respondent/Authorised Investigating Agency is empowered to trace and attach the proceeds of crime under Prevention of Money-Laundering Act and in this regard, there is no prohibition for the Respondent to proceed further in the matter in issue. 26.During the last leg of the argument, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent contends that the act of the Money-Laundering poses a grave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property. 31.The 'Offence of Money-Laundering' relates to proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence. Scheduled Offences are mentioned under Part A of the schedule of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and (2) for offences specified under Part C of the Schedule viz., having cross border implications etc. 32.Indeed, the 'Offence of Money-Laundering' as defined under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, centres around the 'Proceeds of Crime'. 33.Money Laundering is the illegal practice of filtering 'Dirty Money' or Ill-gotton gains through series of transactions until the funds are 'clean' or appear to be the proceeds from legal activities (vide U.S. Comptroller of Currency September 2000). 34.The Vienna and Council of Europe Conventions suggest that the physical element of a money-laundering offence should be based on three factors: 1.The conversion or transfer of property for the purpose of concealing or disguising the illicit origin of the property or assisting any person; 2.To evade the legal consequences of his actions; 3.The concealment or disg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or frozen under Section 17 or Section 18 of the Act, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars. In fact, the show cause which asked for the aforesaid details may specify why all or any of such properties should not be declared to be the properties involved in money-laundering and confiscated by the Central Government. 40.Indeed, the Adjudicating Authority Regulations, 2006 have been now replaced by the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 which specifies to whom the notice is given viz., (a)to an individual in respect of whom the Adjudicatory Authority has reason to believe that he has committed an offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002; (b) In case of any property held by a person on behalf of any person or such other person also; (c)In case of any property held jointly by more than one person who all the persons holding such property. Before passing an order, the Adjudicating Authority is necessarily to consider the reply, if any, filed by any of the individuals to whom the notice is issued. An opportunity of hearing is to be provided to the affected/aggrieved person and the Director or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by an order made by the Adjudicating Authority under this Act, save as otherwise provided in sub-section (3). 46.Section 42 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act provides an opportunity to any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to him on any question of law or fact arising out of such order etc. 47.Section 47 of the Act says that the High Court may exercise, so far as may be applicable, all the powers conferred by Chapter XXIX of Chapter XXX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), on a High Court, as if a Special Court within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court were a Court of Session trying the cases within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court. 48.The Prevention of Money-Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2012 has come into force with effect from 15.02.2013 as per the Central Government Notification in the Official Gazette. Impact of Money Laundering: 49.The Evil act of money-laundering may create a parallel economic system in a particular country cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other order had been made. A 'person aggrieved' must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived him of something, or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something. Attachment and Confiscation: 53.No wonder, the term 'Attachment and Confiscation' is a proceeding 'In Rem and not in Personam'. Section 9 of Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 provides that once a crime relating to property is proved in Competent Court of Law, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass an order in ordering confiscation of such property after hearing the concerned persons. The onus of adducing evidence during trial in respect of the offences under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act is on the prosecution. Analysis: 54.As far as the present cases are concerned, the Petitioners have been issued with the summons dated 10.04.2013 requiring them to appear before the Respondent on the dates mentioned therein. Further, they have been directed to produce the documents mentioned in the Schedule of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any crime (not merely an offence) but determine the liability of the contravenor for the breach of his obligations imposed under the Act. They impose penalty' for the breach of the civil obligations' laid down under the Act and not impose any sentence for the commission of an offence. The expression penalty' is a word of wide significance. Sometime, it means recovery of an amount as a penal measure even in civil proceedings. An exaction which is not compensatory in character is also termed as a penalty'. When penalty is imposed by an adjudicating officer, it is done so in adjudicator proceedings' and not by way of fine as a result of prosecution of an accused' for commission of an offence in a criminal Court. Therefore, merely because penalty' clause exists in Section 23(1)(a), the nature of the proceedings under that Section is not changed from adjudicator' to criminal' prosecution. An order made by an adjudicating authority under the Act is not that of conviction but of determination of the breach of the civil obligation by the offender. Also, in the aforesaid decision, at page Nos.1100 and 1101, it is observed as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under the Sea Customs Act and FERA, 1947 dealt with the principle and scope underlying Article 20(2) of the Constitution. In that case gold was found in possession of the appellant therein when he landed at the Santa Cruz Airport. The appellant was detained and searched by the Customs Authorities and gold was seized from his possession. Proceedings Under Section 167(8) of the Act were taken by the Customs Authorities and after recording evidence, an order was passed confiscating gold and giving an option to the owner to pay fine in lieu of such confiscation Under Section 188 Sea Customs Act. Since nobody came forward to redeem the gold, a complaint was filed in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay against the appellant charging him with having committed an offence Under Section 8 FERA, 1947. The appellant thereupon filed a petition in the High Court of Bombay under Article 226 of the constitution seeking quashing of the complaint by contending that his prosecution in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate was in violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution. It was the case of the appellant before the High Court that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l evidence given on oath. The very wording of Article 20 and the words used therein: convicted , commission of the act charged as an offence be subjected to a penalty , commission of the offence , prosecuted and punished accused of any offence , would indicate that the proceedings therein contemplated are of the nature of criminal proceedings before a Court of law or a judicial tribunal and the prosecution in this context would mean an initiation or starting of proceedings of a criminal nature before a Court of law or a judicial tribunal in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the statute which creates the offence and regulates the procedure. 10.The Court then laid down various tests for determining when a tribunal can be considered to be a judicial tribunal and after referring to a catena of authorities relevant provisions of the Sea customs Act, 1878 and the nature of the adjudicator proceedings as contained in that Act, opined that an adjudicator authority functioning under the Act was merely an administrative machinery for the purpose of adjudging confiscation, determination of duty or the increased rate of duly and for imposition of penalty as prescribed unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t mens-rea (as is understood in criminal law) is not an essential ingredient for holding a delinquent liable to pay penalty Under Section 23(1)(a) of FERA 1947 G for contravention of the provisions of Section 10 of FERA, 1947 and that penalty is attracted Under Section 23(1)(a) as soon as contravention of the statutory obligation contemplated by Section 10(1)(a) is established. The High Court apparently fell in error in treating the blameworthy conduct under the Act as equivalent to the commission of a criminal offence, , overlooking the position that the blameworthy conduct in the adjudicator proceedings is established by proof only of the breach of a civil obligation under the Act, for which the defaulter is obliged to make amends by payment of the penalty imposed Under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act irrespective of the fact whether he committed the breach with or without any guilty intention. Our answer to the first question formulated by us above is, therefore, in the negatives. 57.It is to be remembered that in terms of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. As a matter of fact, Article 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, since the charged offences under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C. are the Scheduled Offences under clause 1 of sub-section (y) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002, the Respondent registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) bearing No.CEZO/2/ 2013 dated 26.03.2013 to carry out the investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act against the Petitioners. Moreover, the summons issued to the Petitioners is a preliminary one relating to the investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act by the authority concerned. The fact of the matter is that the Adjudicating Authority/machinery under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is designated to adjudge the breach of any statutory obligation and it is not a Court of Law or a Judicial Tribunal, in the considered opinion of this Court. Moreover, the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is not trying a criminal case. But only decides the effect of breach of obligations by the concerned. 61.As a matter of fact, the proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act by the Respondent through issuance of summons dated 10.04.2013 to the Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
