Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2022 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 8 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Ponzy Scheme - scheduled offence - issuance of general or special authorization for Officers on deputation to be Deputy Director in the office of the Directorate of Enforcement, under the PML Act - Directorate of Enforcement could have bestowed powers on such an Officer to be an Officer as provided under Section 48 of the PML Act or not - validity of registration of ECIR by an Officer acting as Deputy Director the PML Act, in the absence of general or special authorization - provisional attachment order - Section 45(1A) of the PML Act - HELD THAT:- It is the specific case of the petitioner that Central Government did not issue any special authorization for the officer on deputation to be worked as deputy director and Assistant Director in the office of the Directorate of Enforcement and PML Act. As such, no powers conferred on those officers under Section 48 of the PML Act, absolutely there is no authority or filing the complaint by the Assistant Director against the petitioner under the PML Act. The vacancy circular also not available to show the exercise of power under Section 49(1) of PML Act and on the deputation basis as authority for the purpose of investigation no special order has been passed therefore, the action taken by the respondent under the PML Act is nonest in the eye of law. On bare reading of Sub-section (2) to the 2nd proviso to the section 45 (1) of PML Act empowers any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorize in writing in this behalf by a Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government. The amendment to provision 45 i.e., 45 (1-A) provides that no police officers shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorized by Central Government by a general or special order and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed - the complaint in this case has been filed by respondent 2 who is the Assistant Director, working in Enforcement Directorate, (ED) filed the complaint by exercising the power under the PML Act. The question of considering the power of the respondent No.1 cannot be dealt with by this Court in this petition. Respondent No.2 has filed the complaint as Assistant Director which is in the nature of charge sheet and there are two different proceedings in view of the order passed under Section 5 and filing complaint under section 45 of the PML Act. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner's counsel at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the petition questioning the authority of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not sustainable and the respondents are the authorities under the PML Act and who have been duly appointed by the Central Government and they exercised their power under the Act which is within the jurisdiction under the PML Act. On perusal of the entire records, respondent No.2 is an authorised officer under the PML Act appointed as per Section 49 of the PML Act and he is one of the officers specified under Section 48 of the PML Act. By issuing the notifications, the Central Government has empowered the officer to file the complaint before the Special Court and respondent No.2 is not officer who comes below the rank of the Assistant Director. Therefore, the question of quashing the complaint/challan filed by the respondent No.2 before the Special Court does not call for any interference. Petition dismissed.
|