9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or punished for the same offence. The offences under ULA(P) Act are quite distinct from the offence under the PMLA. The Supreme Court has in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary s case [ 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT ], while interpreting the provisions contained in Section 3 of the PMLA, which defines the offence of money laundering observed involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute offence of money-laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime. From a perusal of the observation of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is an independent offence distinct from the offences under ULA(P) Act which has been incorporated in the Schedule to the PMLA - it is also clear that merely because the predicate offence in the instant case dates back to a period when such offence was not incorporated in the Schedule to the PLMA, it cannot be stated that that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence under the PMLA. The petitioners besides facing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been quashed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 23.03.2010 passed in writ petition No.161/2010. 6) It seems that the respondent Enforcement Directorate has registered as case bearing No.ECIR/01/SRZO/2011 dated 29.04.2011 against the petitioners in which the impugned summons have been issued against them. According to the petitioners, they have been subjected to investigation and enquiry under the provisions of the PMLA on the basis of same allegations which are subject matter of the challan pending against them. 7) In all the three petitions, the petitioners have urged common grounds of challenge against the impugned proceedings initiated by respondent No.4-Enforcement Director against them under the provisions of the PMLA. It has been contended that the provisions of the PMLA are un-constitutional and ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 50 and 323 of the Constitution. It has been further contended that the respondents have subjected the petitioners to prosecution under the provisions of the PMLA on the same allegations and facts which are subject matter of criminal challan pending against them and that this amounts to double jeopardy. On this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ijay Madanlal Choudhary and others vs. Union of India and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 929. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has upheld the constitutional validity of various provisions of the PMLA. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case being binding upon this Court, as such, there is no scope for this Court to re-open the issue. 11) That takes us to the argument of the petitioners that they have been subjected to double jeopardy as the allegations which are subject matter of the criminal challan pending against them are also the subject matter of proceedings initiated against them under the PMLA. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners cannot be subjected to investigation and trial on same set of facts more than once. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon the provisions contained in Section 235 of the Cr. P. C which deals with trial for more than one offence. 12) Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India affords protection against double jeopardy. It provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. A bare perusal of this provisions, makes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation and being a member of a terrorist organization. These offences are clearly distinguishable from the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that the petitioners have been subjected to double jeopardy by initiating prosecution against them under the provisions of the PMLA. 16) The provisions contained in Section 235 of Cr. P. C, that have been relied upon by the petitioners in support of their contention, have no applicability to the instant case because the said provisions govern the matters pertaining to framing of charge and trial of cases relating to series of acts connected to same transaction. 17) It has been next contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the offences under ULA(P) Act were included in the Schedule to the PMLA by virtue of Notification bearing S.O. No.1388(E) dated 1st June, 2009 whereas the alleged activities, on the basis of which petitioners have been subjected to prosecution under the PMLA, are stated to have taken place on 10th March, 2009. On the basis of these facts, it has been contended that the respondents cannot initiate proceedings against the petitioners under the PMLA i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nlarge the scope of Section 3 at all. 19) From a perusal of the afore-quoted observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that even if a criminal activity has been committed before the same had been notified as a Scheduled offence for the purpose of the PLMA, still then if a person has indulged in or continues to indulge directly or indirectly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived or obtained from such criminal activity even after it has been notified as Scheduled offence, the said person is liable to be prosecuted for the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, merely because the predicate offence in the instant case dates back to a period when such offence was not incorporated in the Schedule to the PLMA, it cannot be stated that that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence under the PMLA. 20) Apart from the above, the petitioners besides facing trial for the offences under ULA(P) Act, are also facing trial for offence under Section 121-A of RPC. The offence under Section 121-A of IPC, which is in pari materia with Section 121-A of the RPC, was a scheduled offence even prior to the Amendment Act of 2009. On this ground also, the petitioners cannot claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
