2021 (10) TMI 1299 - HC - Money Laundering

Maintainability of petition - whether as per Section 47 of the Act 2002 instead of filing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner should file revision? - HELD THAT - Since the learned counsel for opposite parties wants to address on the aforesaid legal submission of learned counsel for the petitioner for that he prays some shortest time therefore list/ put up this case on 27.10.2021 as fresh in the additional cause list to enable the learned counsel for the opposite parties to address the Court on the point of maintainability. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall also come prepared on the point of maintainability on the next date.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of prosecution under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Misuse of the process of law.
3. Maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash the prosecution in a criminal case under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner argued that the Special Judge took cognizance without considering the alleged false prosecution. The counsel contended that the petitioner was wrongly implicated, emphasizing discrepancies between the C.B.I. charge-sheet and the E.D.'s complaint regarding the petitioner's role and the investigation's conclusion. The petitioner claimed that the E.D.'s conclusion mirrored the C.B.I.'s without independent assessment, and the supplementary complaint was filed improperly.

2. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the misuse of the legal process, alleging that the E.D.'s actions lacked independent judgment and were unwarranted. The petitioner's defense centered on challenging the validity of the supplementary complaint and the lack of due diligence in the investigation process. The counsel argued that the E.D. failed to demonstrate an independent conclusion and improperly applied Section 44(1) of the Act, 2002. The petitioner contended that the prosecution was based on flawed procedures and requested the court's intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. The opposing party raised a preliminary objection regarding the petition's maintainability under Section 47 of the Act, 2002, suggesting that a revision should have been filed instead of invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. In response, the petitioner's counsel cited legal precedents to support the petition's maintainability, referencing judgments such as State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate. The court scheduled a future hearing to allow the opposing party to address the issue of maintainability further, with instructions for both parties to be prepared for the next hearing.