9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arges framed under PMLA and all further proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner. Criminal revision allowed. - S.A. Dharmadhikari And Devnarayan Mishra, JJ. For the Appellant : Vivek Dalal, Advocate For the Respondents/Defendant: Himanshu Joshi, Deputy Solicitor General ORDER S.A. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 1. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 against the order dated 10.06.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as PML Act) in Special Case No. 47/2015. 2. The brief facts of the case are that:- (I) An FIR No. 57/2010 dated 05.08.2010 was registered by the Lokayukt Police, Indore against Shri Ramesh Mendola and other co- accused including petitioner under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act ) and subsequently the chargesheet No. 48/2013 dated 15.05.2013 was produced against all the accused before the Special Court constituted under the PML, Act. Thereby, after the framing of charges and the production of chargesheet, the co-accused Mr. Ramesh Mendola filed a cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia 2022:INSC:757, SLP (Criminal) No. 4634/2014 dated 27.07.2022 has clearly held that, in reference to Section 3 of the PMLA, that the existence of a predicate/ scheduled offence is a sine qua non for proceeding upon the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the Act. The effect of discharge of any accused from the said offence will automatically end any charges or proceedings under the PMLA Act. If the the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal (supra) is being applied in the present case, the present petitioner deserves to be discharged from the charges. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Apex Court in the SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 21098/2020 has further affirmed the order passed by this Court in CRR No. 1011/2016 by which the co-accused Mr. Ramesh Mendola was discharged from the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the trial Court must have discharged the present petitioner too. 6. Per contra, Shri Himanshu Joshi learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the case of the petitioner is based on the different footing if being compared with the case of co-accused Mr. Ramesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew. (ii) The expression proceedings occurring in Clause (na) of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act is contextual and is required to be given expansive meaning to include inquiry procedure followed by the Authorities of ED, the Adjudicating Authority, and the Special Court. (iii) The expression investigation in Clause (na) of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act does not limit itself to the matter of investigation concerning the offence under the Act and is interchangeable with the function of inquiry to be undertaken by the Authorities under the Act. (iv) The Explanation inserted to Clause (u) of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act does not travel beyond the main provision predicating tracking and reaching upto the property derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. (v) (a) Section 3 of the 2002 Act has a wider reach and captures every process and activity, direct or indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy. The Explanation inserted to Section 3 by way of amendment of 2019 does not expand the purport of Section 3 but is on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 2002 Act stands rejected. There are stringent safeguards provided in Section 17 and Rules framed thereunder. Moreover, the pre-condition in the proviso to Rule 3(2) of the 2005 Rules cannot be read into Section 17 after its amendment. The Central Government may take necessary corrective steps to obviate confusion caused in that regard. (ix) The challenge to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the 2002 Act also stands rejected. There are similar safeguards provided in Section 18. We hold that the amended provision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. (x) The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 19 of the 2002 Act is also rejected. There are stringent safeguards provided in Section 19. The provision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. (xi) Section 24 of the 2002 Act has reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act and cannot be regarded as manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional. (xii) (a) The proviso in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the 2002 Act is to be regarded as directory in nature and this provision is also read down to mean that the Special Court may exercise j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xvii) The inclusion or exclusion of any particular offence in the Schedule to the 2002 Act is a matter of legislative policy; and the nature or class of any predicate offence has no bearing on the validity of the Schedule or any prescription thereunder. (xviii) (a) In view of special mechanism envisaged by the 2002 Act, ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR under the 1973 Code. ECIR is an internal document of the ED and the fact that FIR in respect of scheduled offence has not been recorded does not come in the way of the Authorities referred to in Section 48 to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating civil action of provisional attachment of property being proceeds of crime. (b) Supply of a copy of ECIR in every case to the person concerned is not mandatory, it is enough if ED at the time of arrest, discloses the grounds of such arrest. (c) However, when the arrested person is produced before the Special Court, it is open to the Special Court to look into the relevant records presented by the authorised representative of ED for answering the issue of need for his/her continued detention in connection with the offence of money-laundering. (xix) Even when ED manual is not to be p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
