TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L Act was amended by Act 21 of 2009 and the various offences specified therein came to be included therein with effect from 1.06.2009. Nonetheless, in the instant cases, as on the date of initiation of action against petitioners, be it under section 3 or under section 5 of the PML Act, these provisions were very much there in the statute book. The Schedule to the PML Act of 2002 was amended by Act 21 of 2009 and section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act namely criminal misconduct by a public servant and sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B of IPC came to be inserted in the schedule with effect from 01.06.2009. As a result, as on the date of initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners, the above offences were already included in the Schedule. But the thrust of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the proceeds of crime as defined under section 2(1)(u) of the PML Act is referable to the offences specified in the Schedule and since section 13 of the PC Act and the offences under IPC (predicate offences) came to be inserted in the Schedule by way of amendment only on 01.06.2009, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the acts and eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017(GM-RES) - - - Dated:- 14-12-2020 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA PETITIONER (BY SRI: KIRAN S JAVALI, ADVOCATE A/W SRI: CHANDRASHEKARA.K., ADVOCATE) (BY SRI: D SADASHIVA, ADVOCATE) (BY SRI: NAGENDRA NAIK R, ADVOCATE) RESPONDENT (BY SRI: M.B. NARGUND, ASG A/W SRI: P PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP) SRI: VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2) SRI: A/W P KARUNAKAR, STANDING COUNSEL) SRI: B.S. PRASAD, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2) ORDER In this batch of petitions, petitioners have questioned the correctness and legality of the proceedings initiated against them under sections 3, 4 and 8(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short PML Act ). 2. The common grievance of the petitioners is that they are sought to be prosecuted and the properties belonging to them are sought to be attached / confiscated on the basis of amended law which came into force on 01.06.2009 in respect of the offences which are alleged to have been committed prior to 01.06.2009. 3. For better understanding of the controversy raised in the petitions, narration of the basic facts involved in each case may be necessary. They are recapitulated hereunder: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 73 of Cr.P.C. (Charge sheet No.04/2011 dated 07.07.2011) disclosed that the petitioner directly as well as indirectly indulged, knowingly assisted, knowingly was a party and was actually involved in process and activities connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property. The amounts involved in the offence of money laundering were quantified as:- i. 5,09,27,700/- [as mentioned at para 6(x)] directly withdrawn from ITACA account and ii. 21,95,80,000/- [as mentioned at para 6(x)] obtained through Mr. K.S. Jagadish (his son), withdrawn from ITACA account. Total amount : ₹ 27,05,07,700/- Crl.P.No.6060/2019 5. Accused Nos.6 to 11 and 19 to 21 in Spl.C.C.No.124/2014 are the petitioners in this case. Accused No.6 is the wife of accused No.1. Accused No.7 is the sister of accused No.2 and daughter of accused Nos.1 and 6. Accused No.8 is the brother-in-law of accused No.2 and son-in-law of accused Nos.1 and 2 and husband of accused No.7. Accused No.9 is the sister of accused No.32 and daughter of accused Nos.1 and 6. Accused No.10 is the brother-in-law of accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tainted. Crl.P.No.5329/2016. 9. Accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime.No.6/2009 are the petitioners in this case. A ccused No.2 is the wife of accused No.1. Accused No.3 is the elder brother of accused No.1 and accused No.4 is the son of accused Nos.1 and 2. Crime No.6/2009 was registered against petitioner No.1 by the Lokayukta police under section 13(1) (e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging disproportionate assets to the tune of ₹ 83,68,152/- during the check period 15.03.1975 to 23.09.2009 and the matter was pending consideration of learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bellary, sitting at Hospet. Enforcement Directorate filed a case in Spl.Case No.119/2016 (ECIR No.16/BZ/2009 dated 26.10.2009) alleging that during the check period between 15.3.1975 and 23.09.2009, accused No.1 was actively involved in the process connected with the proceeds of crime to an extent of ₹ 34,98,500/- and accused No.2 being the wife of accused No.1 actively assisted accused No.1 in the process connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in. Crl.P.No.7836/2016 C/w Crl.P.No.7837/2016: 13. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.7836/2016 was the sole accused in Crime No.11/2011 registered by the Lokayuktha Police, Mangaluru. After investigation, charge sheet was laid before the III Addl. District Sessions Judge (Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act), Mangaluru in Spl.C.No.32/2013. During the pendency of this proceeding, action has been initiated under the provisions of PML Act not only against the sole accused but also against his wife and daughter, who are the petitioners in Crl.P.No.7837/2016. W.P.No.52348/2015: 14. The petitioner in W.P.No.52348/2015 was the sole accused in Crime No.11/2010 registered by the Lokayuktha Police, Bagalkote, Vijayapura, for the offences under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After investigation, charge sheet was laid for the above offences, alleging disproportionate of assets during the check period from 11.01.1983 to 16.11.2010. The matter was pending on the file of the Prl. District Sessions Judge (Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act), Vijayapura in Spl.C.No.3/2014. During pendency of this procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing for petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in P.CHIDAMBARAM VS. DIRECTORATE ENFORCEMENT, 2019 SCC Online SC 1143 , with reference to paragraph 14 thereof and emphasized that the proceeds of crime having been made punishable only subsequent to the amendment that came into force with effect from 01.06.2009, prosecution of the petitioners is patently illegal and violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision in MAHIPAL SINGH vs. CBI, 2014(11) SCC 282 and UNION OF INDIA Others vs. DILEEP KUMAR SINGH, (2015) 4 SCC 421. 19. As could be seen from the above narration of facts, the respondent has initiated action against the petitioners for the offence under section 3 of PML Act and also for attachment and confiscation of the proceeds of the crime under sections 5 and 8 of PML Act. 20. Reading of the respective complaints filed under section 45 of the PML Act clearly reveal that the basis for launching the prosecution and initiating attachment proceedings against the petitioners are the final reports /charge sheets filed by the Lokayukta police under section 173 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to the predicate offences cannot be prosecuted for the offence of money laundering and the properties or assets standing in their name cannot be attached in the absence of their involvement in the predicate offence and without there being any mens rea on their part to commit either the predicate offence or the offence charged against them under section 3 of the PML Act. vi) In cases where the charge sheet in respect of the predicate offences were filed prior to the Amendment Act 21 of 2009, the amendment to section 8(5) will not apply in view of the prohibition against retrospective lawmaking, since confiscation also amount to punishment and not a mere procedural law. 21. In support of the above contentions, Sri.Kiran S.Javali and Sri. D. Sadashiva, learned counsels appearing for petitioners have placed reliance on large number of authorities of various High Courts which lay down the following principles: 22. The Delhi High Court in M/s Mahanivesh Oils and Foods Pvt Ltd. v/s. Directorate of Enforcement, (W.P.(C)1925/2014 CM.No.4017/2014 dated 25.01.2016) has ruled as under:- 32. There is no indication from the express language of the Act, that the Legi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he various case laws cited by the petitioner as well as the opposite parties and the legal position which emerges out after study of the various case laws, is that a person can be prosecuted for the offence of money laundering even if he is not guilty of scheduled offences and his property can also be provisionally attached irrespective of the fact as to whether he has been found guilty of the scheduled offences. The prosecution is not required to wait for the result of the conviction for the scheduled offences in order to initiate proceedings under section 3 of the PML Act. However, the person against whom there is an allegation of the offence of money laundering, can approach appropriate forum in order to show his bonafide and innocence that he is not guilty of the offence of money laundering and has not acquired any proceeds of crime or any property out of the proceeds of crime. (Underlining supplied) 24. The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad while deciding M/S SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD., vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, (W.P.No.37487/2012 and connected cases dated 31.12.2018) has taken the view that, 68. Since the charge sheets were filed prior to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of such liability in the statute book. 71. Admittedly, prior to Amendment Act, 2009, none of the provisions which are now invoked by the Enforcement Directorate were on the statue book except Section 467 IPC. Thus, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted by invoking those provisions. (Underlining supplied) 26. The Division Bench of this court in M/s. OBULAPURAM MINING COMPANY PVT. LTD., vs. JOINT DIRECTOR in P.No.5962/2016 and connected matter, observed thus, 12. The petitioner cannot be tried and punished for the offences under the PML Act when the offence were not inserted in the schedule of offences under the PML Act. This would deny the writ petitioner the protection provided under clause (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India prohibits the conviction of a person or his being subjected to penalty for ex-post facto laws. Consequently, the order of attachment is also, liable to be set aside. 27. The High Court of Delhi in M/s Ajanta Merchants Pvt. Ltd., vs. Directorate of Enforcement in Crl.M.C.No.5581/2014 dt. 09.04.2015 , has interpreted the provisions of PML Act as follows: 22. It is settled pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the extent of the value of the proceeds of crime held overseas. In such a case, it would be irrelevant whether the assets acquired in India were acquired prior to or after the PMLA came into force. 109. In the aforesaid view, the contention that assets acquired prior to enactment of the PMLA could never fall under the scope of the definition of the expression proceeds of crime and consequently are immune from the provisions of the PMLA, is erroneous and is accordingly rejected. 29. Sri. M.B. Nargund, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for Karnataka, by referring to the Lok Sabha Debates, has pointed out that the amendments brought to the PML Act were declaratory and clarificatory in nature; by the said amendments, no new offence has been created nor the accrued right of the petitioners / accused have been taken away. In support of this submission, learned ASG referred to the following portions of the Lok Sabha Debates: The other amendments are into the PMLA, the Act relating to black money. On that, I would like to assure the Members regarding the kind of amendments. In fact, I would like to mention, well before that, the number of amendments, which ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and necessary to bring clarificatory amendments for effective implementation of provisions of the Act, regulation and operational measures for combating money laundering, terror financing and other related threats to the integrity of financial system of the country and to achieve the related threats to the integrity of financial system of the country and to achieve the object of the Act of 2002. I would enumerate salient features of the clarificatory amendments and brief reasons for the same. It is also observed that by misconstruing the provisions of this Act, accused being investigated for serious offences, attempt to thwart proceedings under the Act. 3. It has been experienced that certain doubts have been expressed as regard the definition of Proceeds of Crime included in clause (u) to sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act of 2002. It is observed that the object and intention of the legislature while enacting Act of 2002 is wrongly understood to mean that only the property which is derived or obtained as a result of commission of scheduled offence would fall within the definition of proceeds of crime and the Act of 2002 would apply only to such property. The inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w law. 44. From the aforesaid decisions, the legal principle that emerges is that the function of a declaratory or explanatory Act is to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to meaning of the previous Act and such an Act comes into effect from the date of passing of the previous Act. Learned counsel for the appellants strongly relied upon a decision of two-Judges Bench of this Court in Mithilesh Kumari anr. vs. Prem Behari Khare [1989 (2) SCC 95] in support of his argument. In the said decision, it was held by this Court that The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 being a declaratory Act, the provisions of Section 4 of the Act has retroactive operation. The reliance of this decision by the appellants counsel is totally misplaced as this decision was overruled in R. Raja Gopal Reddy vs. Padmini Chandrasekharan (supra) wherein it was held that, the Act was not passed to clear any doubt existed as to the common law or the meaning of effect of any statute and it was, therefore, not a declaratory Act. 32. Next he referred to the decision in ZILE SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA Others, (2004) 8 SCC 1 . In paras 14 and 15 whereof, it is laid down thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutes . The circumstances under which provisions can be termed as declaratory statutes are explained by Justice G.P. Singh in the following manner: Declaratory statutes The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes. As stated in CRAIES and approved by the Supreme Court : For modern purposes a declaratory Act may be defined as an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common law, or the meaning or effect of any statute. Such Acts are usually held to be retrospective. The usual reason for passing a declaratory Act is to set aside what Parliament deems to have been a judicial error, whether in the statement of the common law or in the interpretation of statutes. Usually, if not invariably, such an Act contains a preamble, and also the word declared as well as the word enacted . But the use of the words it is declared is not conclusive that the Act is declaratory for these words may, at times, be used to introduced new rules of law and the Act in the latter case will only be amending the law and will not necessarily be retrospective. In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior to amendment read as follows :- ..such a person has been charged of committing a scheduled offence.. 9.1 Furthermore, the period for which provisional attachment would remain valid was enhanced from 150 days to 180 days from the date of the order. 9.2 In so far as Section 8 is concerned, amendments were carried out in Sub-Sections (1), (3) and (4); besides, substitution of Sub-Sections (5) and (6) with new Sub-Sections (5), (6) and (7) were mandated. 9.3 The consequent effect of insertion of new Sub-Sections (5) and (6), is that, even if conviction for the scheduled offence does not take place, the attachment and pursuant thereto, confiscation of proceeds of crime can take place if, upon conclusion of trial for an offence under PMLA, the special court finds, that the, offence of money laundering has been committed. In other words, the special court, on coming to a conclusion that the offence of money laundering stood committed, can order confiscation of property in favour of the Central Government, in respect of a property, involved in money laundering or, that which was used for commission of offence of money laundering. 10. Having regard to the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me, may come under any of the three categories namely:- (i) person who is not accused of any offence, but who has merely come to possess, under fortunate or unfortunate circumstances, a property that represents the proceeds of a crime; (ii) person against whom a complaint is lodged, but the investigation is not yet complete and a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure not yet filed; or (iii) a person who is accused of committing an offence and against whom a final report has been filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the competent Court. 22. There is no dispute about the fact that out of the above three categories of persons, the case of a person coming under the first category is covered by the second proviso. Similarly, the case of a person coming under the third category is covered by the first proviso. Both these persons represent individuals standing at two extremes of a spectrum. An interpretation to Section 5(1) of the Act that would make persons standing at two extremes of the spectrum liable to suffer an order of attachment, but would leave out persons standing in between, as not liable to suffer an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guilt. Thus, there is an ingredient of continuance of the offence in continuing offence. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the second proviso to Section 5(1) is only prospective and not retrospective is without substance or force. The second proviso is applicable to property acquired even prior to the coming into force of this provision. Hence, retrospective penalization is permissible. 39. In S.RAMESH POTHY and Ors. THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY and Ors., in W.P.No.34694/2016 dated 20.12.2016 , the High court of Madras has elucidated the terms any person and any property found in section 2(u) in the following words: 11. In Section 2(u), the words any property and any person are used. The Section does not say that at the relevant point of time, the property in question must be in the hands of the alleged offender. This can be elucidated with an example. A professional assassin would quote a price for an elimination from his hirer. The price will mostly be in terms of money . He would successfully complete his assignment and take his price in money. That is one proceeds of crime. The money will not be in the same avatar indefinitely. It would be conver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enactments, prescribed under Part A to Part C of the Schedule, still such person can be proceeded under PML Act. In other words, proceedings can be against person who are accused of a schedule offence or against persons who are accused of having committed an offence of money laundering and also persons who are found to be in possession of the proceeds of crime . It is not necessary that a person has to be prosecuted under the PML Act only in the event of such person having committed schedule offence. The prosecution can be independently initiated only for the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 read with Section 2(p) which provides that money laundering having the meaning assigned to it under Section 3 of the Act. 41. This decision is followed by this Court in VINOD RAMNANI VS. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,(W.P.No.244 of 2020(GM-RES) c/w W.P.No.8031/2020) decided on 13.08.2020. 42. This Court in SOWBAGHYA VS. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND OTHERS in W.P.Nos.14649 and 19732 of 2014 decided on 28.01.2016, has gone into the constitutional validity of sections 2(1)(u), 3, 5, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24 and 44 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners appear to have put forward the plea of post facto law on the premise that the acts constituting the offences alleged against them were perpetrated prior to the amendment of the schedule to the PML Act and therefore, the action initiated against them falls within the mischief of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. This contention, in my view, in the factual setting of the case, is totally misplaced and misconceived and appears to have been canvassed by misconstruing the provisions of sections 3, 2(1)(u) and the Schedule appended to the PML Act. No-doubt, it is true that the Schedule to the PML Act was amended by Act 21 of 2009 and the various offences specified therein came to be included therein with effect from 1.06.2009. Nonetheless, in the instant cases, as on the date of initiation of action against petitioners, be it under section 3 or under section 5 of the PML Act, these provisions were very much there in the statute book. As already stated above, in all the cases, the prosecution under section 3 of the PML Act and adjudication proceedings under section 5 of the PML Act have been initiated against the petitioners subsequent to 1.06.2009. Therefore, the contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s with retrospective effect. When no penal action is initiated against the petitioners based on the newly inserted offences under the Schedule i.e., section 13 of the PC Act or IPC sections, question of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India getting attracted does not arise at all. 48. From the plain reading of section 3 read with section 2(1)(u) of the PML Act, it is clear that what is made punishable under section 3 is the activity connected with the proceeds of crime either by getting oneself involved in the process or activity connected thereto or directly or indirectly attempting to indulge or knowingly assist or knowingly be a party to the alleged activities and projecting it as untainted property, whereas the components of the offences under section 13 of the PC Act and Sections 120B, 419, 420 and other IPC offences are entirely different. The prosecution under section 3 of the PML Act, by no stretch of imagination, could be equated with the prosecution under section 13 of the PC Act or other offences specified in the Schedule namely IPC or other laws. They are distinct and separate offences. Prosecution under section 3 of PML Act is not based on the outcome of the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been committed or not. He could show that the property in question has not come in his possession and that he has not knowingly appropriated the same. In such a situation, if the offence is not established, the property would revert back to him. The changes that were brought about to Sections 5 and 8 synchronize with other provisions contained in the Act. Section 44, which now stands amended contemplates trial of both, the scheduled offence and the offence of money laundering by the same Special Court. In these circumstances, there is no likelihood of conflict of orders relating to the said offences. 50. This judgment is not under challenge from any quarters. The view taken in this judgment is consistently followed by various other High courts and the position of law is now well established that the offence under section 3 is independent of the predicate offence listed in the Schedule appended to the PML Act. Therefore, the prosecution of the offender for his involvement in the process or activity connected with the proceeds obtained through the commission of a predicate offence cannot be said to be a prosecution based on ex post facto legislation. The allegations made a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Opium Act, as that was the law in force at the time of commission of an offence and if he is convicted under section 18 of the NDPS Act, whether it would tantamount to retrospective operation of law imposing penalty which is prohibited under Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India. The Hon ble Supreme Court held as under:- Article 20(1) gets attracted only when any penal law penalises with retrospective effect i.e. when an act was not an offence when it was committed and additionally the persons cannot be subjected to penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence. The Article prohibits application of ex post facto law. In Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Anr. v. State of Vindhya Pradesh[23], while dealing with the import under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, the Court stated what has been prohibited under the said Article is the conviction and sentence in a criminal proceeding under ex post facto law and not the trial thereof. The Constitution Bench has held that:- 9 . what is prohibited under Article 20 is only conviction or sentence under an ex post facto law and not the trial the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is found indulging, or knowingly assisting or involved in any process or activities connected with the proceeds of crime. It is now well settled that If a subject acquires property by means which are not legally approved, sovereign would be perfectly justified to deprive such persons of the enjoyment of such ill-gotten wealth. There is a public interest in ensuring that persons who cannot establish that they have legitimate sources to acquire the assets held by them do not enjoy such wealth. (AIR 2014 SC 1003, BISWANATH BHATTACHARYA VS UNION OF INDIA ORS). 55. The very same principle is enshrined in section 3 and Sections 5, 8 of the PML Act. As a result, it goes without saying that the properties acquired by commission of any of the offences listed in the schedule at any point of time as long as they continue to be in the possession or enjoyment of the offenders and that the offenders are found to have been involved in any of the process or activity connected with the proceeds derived by the scheduled offence, render themselves liable not only for prosecution but also for adjudication and consequent confiscation unless they establish that they have legitimate source t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of sections 5 and 8 of the PML Act, in the case of Vinod Ramnani and Another vs. State House Officer and Another referred supra has observed thus:- Going by the text context of the provisions of PML Act and the construction placed thereon by the Co- ordinate Bench of this court coupled with a broad consensual view emerging from the aforesaid decisions of other High Courts in the country, some lone voices in variance notwithstanding, the legal position can be concised thus: the scheme of the Act envisages two parallel streams of action which are distinguishable by their nature, scope object; one stream is the criminal proceedings before the Special Courts for the trial of offences u/s.3 r/w Sec.4, that are governed by the provisions of Chapter VII, and the other stream is the departmental proceedings apparently civil in nature, instituted by the competent authorities, that are governed by the provisions of Chapter III; the object of former is punitive, whereas that of the latter is confiscatory; obviously, the proceedings under one chapter are independent of those under the other, and therefore, the determination of proceedings under one stream does not ipso facto affe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61. As observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Biswanath Bhattacharya V. Union of India and Others referred above, penalty is a generic term which includes fine and penalty. Fine is pecuniary penalty; forfeiture is a penalty by which one looses his right and interest over the property; whereas, confiscation is condemnation of the property to the public treasury. It is not considered as punishment either under the scheme of PML Act or under Section 8(5) of the Act. Keeping in view the object of the PML Act, a speedy mechanism has been provided under the PML Act for recovery and confiscation of the property laundered by the offenders. As already noted above, that no subject has an inviolable right to enjoy the wealth acquired by him by illegitimate means, the legitimate source of which cannot be explained by him. That being the object and purpose sought to be effectuated by section 5 and 8 of the PML Act and a well oiled machinery having been provided with all safeguards to protect the right and interest of the offender as well as those who are not parties to the predicate offence, there is absolutely no basis for the petitioners to seek quashment of the attachment and cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
