Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2017 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1452 - SIKKIM HIGH COURTConstitutional validity and legality of the provisions of Sections 2(u), 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 24, 45 and 50 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act) - it is indeed expedient to consider why it was essential to have legislative intervention to prevent money-laundering, a worldwide phenomenon, which if left unchecked can destabilize financial systems and jeopardize national security. Held that:- The object of the Act as already pointed out in elaborate discussions under Section 2(u), is to abort the process of money-laundering at its inception. Thus, the wisdom of the Legislature cannot be questioned, when such inclusion has been made, as there may be circumstances where the predicate offence and the offence under Section 3 are intertwined. Section 24 clearly indicates that it is a rebuttable presumption, affording the Petitioner sufficient opportunity of establishing that the property in his possession or the value of any such property, has been acquired by legal means and is not the result of any illegal methods, which would comprise of an offence under Section 3. The insertion of this provision obviously takes us back to the object of the Act, being to prevent money-laundering, which itself comprises of a series of illegal acts. Once the offender is able to explain the source of the property, which is in his possession, then the prosecution is required to discharge its burden. Infact by shifting the onus to the accused, it affords him an opportunity of establishing his innocence and clarifying to the prosecution the source of his property and therefore, contains a safeguard for the accused. Consequently, it cannot be said that the provision is unconstitutional. Thus, when considering the Acts the object has to be given primary importance and the provision thereof cannot be said to be ultra vires when the end goal is to be achieved. Section 24 unequivocally extends an opportunity to the offender to establish the source of his property, which if legitimate can be fully justified by the Petitioner. Under Section 45(ii) of the Act discretion vests with the Court to enlarge the Petitioner on bail or to refuse such bail - Evidence “beyond reasonable doubt” is not envisaged at this stage. In my considered opinion, the limitations are not unfounded or arbitrary. The Legislature has evidently used the words “reasonable grounds for believing”, in Section 45(1)(ii) to enable the Court dealing with the bail, to justifiably hold, as to whether there is indeed a genuine case against the accused and whether the prosecution is able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge and the evidence so furnished if unrebutted could lead to a conviction. Apprehension of repetition of the crime is another consideration in refusing bail, as also the antecedents of an accused person. - There is evidently no infirmity in the provision and cannot be said to offend Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In conclusion, bearing in mind the object of the Act and the detailed discussions which have ensued hereinabove, being bereft of merit, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. - Decided against the petitioner.
|