Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2023 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1069 - HC - Money LaunderingValidity of the cognizance/ summoning order - non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant - grant of pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. would fall within the purview of ‘finally absolved by a Court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the scheduled offence against him’? - HELD THAT:- An order for discharge of the accused is passed or the criminal proceedings against him are quashed when on the face of the allegations, no triable offence is made out against the accused person and an order of acquittal is passed when the accused could not be proved guilty even after facing the trial. On the other hand, pardon is granted to a person who is ‘supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence’. Pardon is granted only to persons who were involved in commission of the offence and not to a person against whom no case is made out or no case could be established. Therefore, a person who is granted pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. in a scheduled offence, would not be a person who has been ‘finally absolved by a Court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the scheduled offence against him’ mentioned in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT], against whom no proceedings under PMLA can continue. Section 46 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 provides that the persons conducting the prosecution before the Special Court, shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor. However, the public prosecutor conducting the trial of the offence under PMLA before the Special Court cannot file objections regarding concealment of facts relating the processes or activities connected with proceeds of the offence, namely - (a) concealment; or (b) possession; or (c) acquisition; or (d) use; or (e) projecting as untainted property; or (f) claiming as untainted property before the Court trying the scheduled offence. Grant of pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. would not fall within the purview of the words ‘finally absolved by a Court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the scheduled offence against him’ - The pardon granted under Section 306 Cr.P.C. to a person in a scheduled offence would not ipso facto result in his acquittal in the offence under the PMLA, unless, of course, the accused person seeks pardon in the case under PMLA also by making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence under PMLA also. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to secure the ends of justice, as held in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave a word of caution by stating that “the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases”. In case the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the applicant is accepted, it would result in a person accused of committing an offence under PMLA going scot free without facing trial and without seeking pardon in PMLA case by making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and it would defeat the ends of justice. There is no illegality in the cognizance/ summoning order - Application dismissed.
|