Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2019 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 391 - HC - Money LaunderingOffence under PMLA - attachment orders - assets acquired prior to enactment of PMLA - HELD THAT:- There is a requirement that an action may be taken by an officer only when there is reason to believe, especially in the context of a statute where stringent procedures are laid down, the requirement of having reason to believe must be strictly complied with. PMLA is exactly such a statute where stringent procedures have been laid down. No reason why the essence of the definition contained in section 26 of the IPC should not inform the interpretation of the same phrase in section 17 of the PMLA. It is noteworthy that the phrase ‘reason to believe’ has a specific connotation in criminal jurisprudence and is not merely an ordinary and colloquial phrase. We must never forget the venerated principle of law laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Nazir Ahmad vs. Emperor reported as AIR 1936 PC 253, that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all; and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. In our view this principle must a fortiori apply to a special statute such as PMLA. No infirmity in the impugned judgment on the issue. We hold that ingredients of section 17 of PMLA must be scrupulously complied with and it is impermissible for seizure to be made by relying instead upon the provisions of section 102 of the CrPC. Wherever there is/are any provision/s covering any aspect of proceedings under PMLA, such provisions would prevail and must be adhered to regardless of any cognate provision contained in the CrPC. Provisions of the CrPC may however be relied upon as residuary provisions for proceedings under PMLA on aspects and matters for which no specific provision is contained in PMLA. In case of any conflict or contradiction as between provisions of PMLA and CrPC, those contained in PMLA would prevail and those of the CrPC must yield. Insofar as the question of whether assets acquired prior to enactment of PMLA come within the definition of ‘proceeds of crime’, the view taken by the single Judge, namely that it is irrational to hold that such assets could never fall within the definition contained in section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, has not been challenged or argued before us. The appellant has also not pressed any challenge to the observation of the single Judge that the private parties shall be entitled to seek consequential relief in any other court or forum.
|