9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the materials collected by the 1st Respondent/CBI will not entitle the Petitioner to seek transfer the impugned proceedings initiated by the 1st Respondent/CBI to the Special Court constituted for the said Act to be tried jointly. This Court is of the firm opinion that the cases, arising out of money laundering, pending before the other Courts other than the Special Court cannot be transferred and such a Court can only commit the cases to the Special Court on filling necessary application by the authority concerned, seeking permission to file the complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Therefore, the question of transferring the impugned proceedings to the Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act does not arise at all. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be sustained, at this stage. This Court is of the view that the cases, which are pending on the file of the CBI Court in connection with various offences, which were investigated in the year 2013, cannot be transferred to the Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering as sought for by the Petitioner/A1. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the funds for the purpose for which it was sanctioned and disbursed and diverted the funds for personal benefits and through accounts of several benami Companies floated by him, resulting in a wrongful loss of ₹ 77.39 crores to the Bank of Baroda, as on 31.03.2009. By the aforesaid acts, the Petitioner/A1 and A2 Company, represented by A1 had committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC, to take cognizance of the offence and try the accused, in accordance with law. It is under these circumstances that this Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking the relief as stated above. 4. This court heard the learned counsel on either side. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the impugned proceedings in CC.No.9635 of 2014 is in respect of the schedule offence and is pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. He would further submit that in respect of the schedule offence, proceedings have been initiated by the Enforcement Directorate in ECIR/CEZO/8/2014 and that the proceedings has culminated into a complaint in CC.No.4 of 2018, pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, being the Special Court unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1)(c) of PMLA, the Court, which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence, is different from that of the Special Court, trying the offence under the PMLA, the Court, trying the case, shall commit the case to the Special Court on application from the Authorised Authority. However, there is no bar to continue with the trial and the Act is clear that the Special Court can proceed to deal with the case from the stage at which it is committed. He would further submit that mere filing of the complaint by the Authorised Authority before the Special Court will not preclude the Court, trying the case for the offence under schedule offence to proceed with the trial. He would further submit that cases with similar prayer was earlier considered by this Court, in a batch of Criminal Original Petitions in Crl.OP.Nos.25157 to 25168 of 2016 and this Court, by order dated, 14.06.2017, had rejected the prayer, seeking joint trial and that the impugned proceedings initiated by CBI is pending since 2014, whereas the proceedings of ED under the PMLA has been initiated much later and thereby, the prayer cannot be sustained till an application under Section 44(1)(c) of the Act is filed by the Enforce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings in CC.No.9635 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, to the Special Court, mainly on the ground that the 2nd Respondent, namely, the Directorate of Enforcement, has also filed a private complaint before the Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, namely, Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai, which is constituted for trying the cases contemplated under the PMLA and the same has also been taken cognizance by the Special Court for the aforesaid offences in CC.No.4 of 2018 under the PMLA and thereby, the Special Court constituted for the said Act, the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, which is the Special Court, alone is competent to try the impugned proceedings in CC.No.9635 of 2014 and he would seek for transfer of the impugned proceedings to the said Special Court to be tried along with CC.No.4 of 2018. 13. Chapter VII of the PMLA deals with the designation of Special Courts, offences triable by the Special Court and the manner in which trials are to be conducted by the Special Court. Section 44 deals with the offences triable by Special Courts. 14. At this juncture, before adverting to the discussion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which are pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 16. Admittedly, the Petitioner was prosecuted by the 1st Respondent/CBI for having committed serious bank frauds to the tune of ₹ 77.39 crores and accordingly, the charge sheet was filed under the provisions of IPC, namely, Section 420 of IPC. Mere filing of the private complaint to proceed against the Petitioner for the same serious bank frauds, on the basis of the materials collected by the 1st Respondent/CBI will not entitle the Petitioner to seek transfer the impugned proceedings initiated by the 1st Respondent/CBI to the Special Court constituted for the said Act to be tried jointly. 17. Factually, the impugned proceedings is of the year 2014 and the proceedings before the Special Court is of the year 2018. In respect of the impugned proceedings, the investigation has already been completed by the CBI even in the year 2014 itself and taken up in CC.No.9635 of 2014. The Petitioner has been questioned and it is at the stage of framing charges and the discharge petition filed by the Petitioner is pending from the year 2016. 18. Section 44(1)(c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling necessary application by the authority concerned, seeking permission to file the complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Therefore, the question of transferring the impugned proceedings to the Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act does not arise at all. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be sustained, at this stage. 22. As stated above, admittedly, in respect of the impugned proceedings, the 1st Respondent/CBI has not charge sheeted the Petitioner for the offence with respect to money laundering, as contemplated under the Act, 2002. That being so, the prayer of Petitioner/A1, seeking transfer of the afore said cases from the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, to the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai constituted for the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, cannot be allowed, at this stage, merely because such case also involves serious bank frauds. 23. No doubt, the offence of money laundering is inextricably linked with the scheduled offence and thereby, it would be the ultimate interest of the Prosecution to see that charges for the predicate offence/scheduled offence a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
