Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2015 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2679 - HC - Money LaunderingProceeding and investigation initiated under Prevention of Money Laundering Act - is the offence under PMLA is cognizable offence or it is non-cognizable offence? - Held that:- The offence under PMLA is cognizable. In the present case the offence is registered under PMLA. Under the provisions of PMLA, the investigating officers are not the police officers but since for investigation of offence Provisions of Criminal Procedure Code are held to be applicable, therefore, they are required to follow the same. Keeping in view the provisions of section 65 of PMLA and also the fact that there is no procedure prescribed in PMLA for investigation of the offence, it is of the opinion that the procedure which has been prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code is required to be followed while investigating the offence under PMLA. Whether the Court of Additional Sessions Judge is the Special Court within the meaning of section 43 of PMLA? - Held that:- Section 43 of PMLA empowers Central Government to designate one or more Courts of Sessions as Special Court or Special Courts for notified areas and places for trial of the offences punishable under section 4. The Central Government vide Notification dated 1-6-2006 issued under section 43(1) of the PMLA has designated the Courts of Sessions at Gwalior, Indore, Bhopal, Sagar and Jabalpur as Special Courts for trial of offences punishable under section 4 of the Act. Exercising the power under section 43 of PMLA, Central Government vide Notification dated 1-6-2006 has designated the Sessions Court at Gwalior, Indore, Bhopal, Sagar and Jabalpur as Special Court, therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge who in terms of section 9 of Criminal Procedure Code is covered within the meaning of Court of Session, is empowered to try the offences under section 4 of PMLA being the designated Court. The Central Government has not confined the designation of the Special Court to "Sessions Judge" only but it has notified Sessions Court as designated Court, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the Additional Sessions Judge is not the designated Court, cannot be accepted. Issue of grant of bail - Held that:- In the present case nothing has been pointed out to show that the respondents have acted in contravention of the aforesaid provision relating to arrest as contained in section 19 or the bail has been rejected in violation of section 45 of the Act. Hence, it cannot be held that the petitioner is in illegal custody. The Special Court, which has been found to be the competent Court, has already rejected the application for bail, hence no ground is made out for issuing the writ of Habeas Corpus. No case is made out for quashing the offence which has been registered against the petitioner under PMLA and so far as the issue of investigation is concerned, the parties are required to take appropriate steps in terms of Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgment.
|