9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of the case. The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 50(2), (3) and (4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) read with Section 24, 63 and 66 of the PMLA 2002 as ultra vires of the Constitution of India and as a consequence thereof to quash and to set aside the summons dated 24.9.2021 and 25.10.2021 issued by the respondent no. 2 under Section 50(2) of PMLA, 2002 in respect of ECIR/17/HIU/2020 for a direction to restrain the respondent no. 2 from issuing any further summons under Section 50(2) of PMLA 2002 against the petitioner. It is pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that the aforesaid provisions of the said Act are coercive in nature which forces a citizen or person to give self incriminatory evidence without ensuring any Constitution and/or legal safeguards and the power exercised by the Investigating Authority of the said Act is arbitrary and oppressive which lacks reasonableness and fairness as required under Article 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 2 to register a case at New Delhi where the predicate of the offence has been a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eference to a decision in the case of D.K. Trivedi & Sons & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 1986 (Suppl.) SCC 20 has been made to pointing out that the High Court should stay the hearing of the writ application until the Hon'ble Apex Court disposes the matter on the similar issue as raised in the instant writ application in view of the observation made in paragraph 83 which reads thus:- "Civil Appeals 1525 and 1526 of 1982 are directed against the order of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the constitutionality of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and the validity of Notification No. GU-81/75/MCR 2181/(168)- 4536-CHH dated June 18, 1981, and directing the appellants to approach the Supreme Court as similar matters were pending there. In our opinion, the course adopted by the High Court was not correct. If the High Court thought that the point raised by the appellants was the same as was pending in this Court, it ought to have stayed the hearing of the writ petitions until this Court disposed of the other matters. As we have, however, held Section 15 and the amendments ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest. 43. In the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kartar Singh8, the Constitution Bench of this Court held that where a party seeks to impeach the validity of a rule on the ground of such rule offending Article 14, the burden is on him to plead and prove infirmity. This Court said : "........., if the rule has to be struck down as imposing unreasonable or discriminatory standards, it could not be done merely on any apriori reasoning but only as a result of materials placed before the Court by way of scientific analysis. It is obvious that this can be done only when the party invoking the protection of Art. 14 makes averments with details to sustain such a plea and leads evidence to establish his allegations. That where a party seeks to impeach the validity of a rule made by a competent authority on the ground that the rules offend Art. 14 the burden is on him to plead and prove the infirmity is too well established to need elaboration. If, therefore, the respondent desired to challenge the validity of the rule on the ground either of its unreasonableness or its discriminatory nature, he had to lay a foundation for it b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plead and prove to the contrary." Thus, it is urged by Mr. S.V. Raju, learned A.S.G. that there is always a presumption of constitutional validity of the provisions of the law legislated by the Parliament because the Legislatures are alive to the situation as to why they are enacting provisions of such kind and that the burden is always on the petitioner to rebut the presumption. All such contentions as raised on behalf of the respondent no. 2, in my humble opinion, can be dealt with by deciding the issue raised on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the constitutional validity of the provisions as referred to above, however, if similar provisions are under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; result in the instant writ application will be abide by the decision taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Mr. Dastoor, learned A.S.G. further submits that there is no urgency in the matter as the direction is only on the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation by his appearance before the respondent no. 2 on 23.11.2021, and there is enough time for him to make his submission before the authority concerned. Mr. Dastoor also points out that there is no reason for the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion to the observation made in paragraphs 64 and 65 to submit that the High Court should not pass interim order of stay of arrest and/or "no coercive step to be taken against the accused" in the quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution without assigning any reasons. Because granting of such blanket order would not only adversely affect the investigation but would have far reaching implications for maintaining the Rule of Law. Where the investigation is stayed for a long time, even if the stay is ultimately vacated, the subsequent investigation may not be very fruitful for the simple reason that the evidence may no longer be available. Therefore, in case, the accused named in the FIR/complaint apprehends his arrest, he has a remedy to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and on the conditions of grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., he may be released on anticipatory bail by the competent court. I have respectfully gone through the decisions. In my considered view at this stage, prima facie, this Court is convinced that the petitioner is required by the respondent authority only for cooperating into the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
