Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2017 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1353 - HC - Money LaunderingOffence under PMLA - Whether the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners therein were earlier to the inclusion of several offences under several enactments in the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2009? - Held that:- Insofar as the question as to whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioners pursuant to the amendment in respect of offences allegedly committed prior to the amendment could be taken forward under the provisions of the PML Act is concerned, the Division Bench IN in the case of Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited vs. Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement [ 2017 (4) TMI 1 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has opined in the negative. Since the offences were included in the Schedule only with effect from 1.6.2009, it was held that the Enforcement Directorate could not have invoked the provisions of the Act with retrospective effect and the petitioners cannot be tried and punished for the offences under the PML Act, as the offences were not inserted in the schedule of offences under the PML Act. It is also stated that this would deny the petitioners the protection provided under clause (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and that the said Article 20(1) prohibits the conviction of a person or his being subjected to penalty for ex-post facto laws. Consequently, the order of attachment was held liable to be set aside. the respondents would seek to distinguish the said decision by reference to a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of B.Rama Raju vs. Union of India, (2012 (5) TMI 240 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH), which was dealing with the very Act. Since the Division Bench of this Court was aware of the aforesaid judgment, as it was available as on the date of the order, the same being sought to be distinguished, would require this court to disagree with the order passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and therefore, this court refrains from doing so. On the other hand, the reasoning of the Division Bench of this Court appeals to this Bench.
|