TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mendment could be taken forward under the provisions of the PML Act is concerned, the Division Bench IN in the case of Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited vs. Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement [ 2017 (4) TMI 1 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has opined in the negative. Since the offences were included in the Schedule only with effect from 1.6.2009, it was held that the Enforcement Directorate could not have invoked the provisions of the Act with retrospective effect and the petitioners cannot be tried and punished for the offences under the PML Act, as the offences were not inserted in the schedule of offences under the PML Act. It is also stated that this would deny the petitioners the protection provided under clause (1) of Arti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to a similar question of law which has been addressed by a Division Bench of this court in WP 5962/2016, in the case of Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited vs. Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, disposed of on 13.3.2017. The question considered was whether the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners therein were earlier to the inclusion of several offences under several enactments in the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2009 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PML Act', for brevity) and as such, they would have no application to the alleged offences committed earlier to the amendment and that the Enforcement Case Information Report and the Order of Attachment were hence without jurisdiction a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r would, with equal force, apply to the present petitions and therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be allowed. 4. The learned Counsel Shri S.Mahesh, appearing for the respondents would seek to distinguish the said decision by reference to a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of B.Rama Raju vs. Union of India, (2011)164 CompCa149 (AP), which was dealing with the very Act. Since the Division Bench of this Court was aware of the aforesaid judgment, as it was available as on the date of the order, the same being sought to be distinguished, would require this court to disagree with the order passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and therefore, this court refrains from doing so. On the other hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
