TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sary. The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment preferred this appeal. HELD THAT:- On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the view that no interference is called for. the CBI is investigating into the commission of these offences alone and presently is not investigating any offence under the PML Act as the investigation under the PML Act is solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction and domain of the ED, which is of course subject to the exercise of powers by the Central Govt. u/s 45 (1-A) of the Act. - Dalveer Bhandari And Deepak Verma JJ. JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.08.2010 passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.4700 of 2008 by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. 3. In the impugned judgment, it is mentioned that the basic allegation is amassing of illicit wealth by various former Ministers, including a former Chief Minister of the State. The money alleged to have been so earned is of unprecedented amounts. However, there is no clear allegation so far about its laundering in the sense mentioned above, but there is an alle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rring investigation from the Enforcement Directorate to the CBI. If such an order is not passed by the Central Government, any material found by the CBI during investigation, which leads to an inference of money laundering within the PML Act will be shared by the CBI with the Enforcement Directorate from time to time, to enable the Enforcement Directorate to take such action, as may be necessary. 8. The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment preferred this appeal before this court. Shri K.K. Venugopal, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant formulated following substantial questions of law concerning the impugned judgment and the interpretation of the PML Act. 1. Whether the PML Act is a self-occupied Code while the Act constituting the CBI is limited? 2. Whether, in light of Section 45(1A) read with Sections 43 and 44 of the PML Act, the CBI has any authority to investigate offences which are the sole domain of the Enforcement Directorate? 3. Whether the High Court was right in brushing aside all the allegations against the PIL and directing investigation by the CBI? 9. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the offence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r wherewithal to deal with the offences under the PML Act. In addition, as specifically defined in Section 55 (c) of the PML Act, the ED is empowered internationally to trace the proceeds of crime, with great freedom accorded to the ED when the nexus is established with a contracting state. The CBI does not possess such an advantage. 17. Mr. Venugopal placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan Others (1996) 9 SCC 735 where the identical issue arose of the CBI seeking to investigate offences under the FERA, which was the sole domain of the ED, the Court held as follows: (i) The officers of the ED are empowered to exercise the powers under the FERA as per Sections 3 4, and no other authority has been empowered except as the Central Government may empower from time to time. (ii) FERA is a special and a central legislation enacted later in time than the DSPE Act, and Section 4(2) of the Cr. P.C. makes it clear that only in the absence of any provision in any other law relating to investigation will a member of the police force be authorized to investigate the offence. (iii) The FERA Act is a complete code in it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcement. It is mentioned in the written submissions that the Vigilance P.S. Case No.09/2009 dated 02.07.2009 is instituted inter alia alleging commission of offence under sections 409, 420, 423, 424, 465, 120-B of IPC and Sections 7, 10, 11, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said complaint was registered on directions of the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, who exercised powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. It named Shri Madhu Koda, former Chief Minister, Shri Kamlesh Singh, former Minister, Shri Bhanu Prasad Shah, former Minister and Bandhu Tirky, former Minister of Jharkhand. 23. During the course of investigation into the said complaint by the Vigilance, P.S., State of Jharkhand, involvement of the appellant Binod Kumar Sinha had surfaced. The FIR also contains clear allegations against the appellant. The Central Bureau of Investigation is investigating into the commission of these offences alone and is not investigating any offence under the PML Act, 2002 since the investigation under the said Act is solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction and domain of the Enforcement Directorate, which is of course subject to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fences specified in Part A or Part B of the Schedule to the Act before the commencement of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009. 28. Section 2(u) defines proceeds of crime and the same is reproduced hereunder: (u) proceeds of crime means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property; 29. Section 2(x) defines Schedule and the same is reproduced hereunder : Schedule means the Schedule to this Act . 30. Section 2(y) defines Scheduled Offences and the same is reproduced hereunder :- (2y) scheduled offence means-- (i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is thirty lakh rupees or more; or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule. 31. Sections 3 and 4 are reproduced hereunder:- 3. Offence of money-laundering.-- Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person being in possession of any proceeds of the crime and not on a concluded investigation of the person being in possession of the proceeds of the crime. The distinction is clear and it follows from Section 5(1)(b) that the second condition for initiation of action of attachment of property involved in money laundering is that such person in respect of whom there is reason to believe that he is in possession of any proceeds of the crime, has been charged of having committed a scheduled offence. 37. Mr. Raval contended that if the contentions of the appellant were true, then the sections of the said Act would have been differently worded. He also submitted that the contention of the appellant on the basis of provisions of sections 43 to 45 that any of the scheduled offences can only be investigated exclusively by the Enforcement Directorate is not justified and tenable at law. 38. Mr. Raval submitted that the embargo from taking cognizance by the Special Court of any offence as provided in the second proviso of sub section (1) of section 45 is only with respect to an offence punishable under section 4. It is only in respect of an offence punishable under section 4 of the Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cquired by abuse of official position amounting to an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and under the Indian Penal Code and persons by whom the same has been done the amount of money which has been so earned and the places where it has been invested. 44. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the High Court in the impugned order has recorded cogent reasons for directing the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Even this court while issuing notice vide order dated 01.09.2010 has directed the CBI to continue to investigate as directed by the High Court. Under the circumstances, the appellant is not entitled to any relief as contended. 45. Mr. Raval informed the Court that the charge sheet in fact has been filed on 12.11.2010 before the Court of Competent Jurisdiction alleging inter alia commission of offence under section 120-B IPC, Section 9, Section 13 (2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against various accused including the appellant Shri Binod Kumar Sinha. It is further submitted that the investigation is still on and subsequent charge sheets may be filed as and when during investigation suff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
