TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he plain reading of the section goes to show that the Special Court can also try the scheduled offence but not simultaneously with money laundering offence. Authorised person from Enforcement Directorate can also file an application before the Special Court which is dealing with the scheduled offence, which is other than the Special Court dealing with money laundering offence. On such application being filed by authorised person from Enforcement Directorate, predicate/scheduled offence can be committed to the Special Court as enshrined in Section 44(1)(c) of PML Act. On careful reading of Section 2(1)(u) of PML Act, 2002, a wider definition is given to proceeds of crime including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence, but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relatable to a scheduled offence. Section 3 of PML Act, 2002, further clarifies that a person shall be guilty of offence of money laundering if such a person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge in concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting as untainted property, claiming as untainted propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner/A-3 (Jagati Publications Ltd.) under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. requesting to take up the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence i.e. C.C. No. 10/2012 before S.C. No. 2/2016. Crl. M.P. No. 1416/2020 is filed by the petitioner/A-2 (V. Vijay Sai Reddy) and Crl. M.P. No. 1417/2020 is filed by the petitioner/A-5 (Jagati Publications Ltd.) under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. requesting to take up the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence i.e. C.C. No. 24/2013 before S.C. No. 2/2017. Crl. M.P. No. 1418/2020 is filed by the petitioner/A-2 (V. Vijay Sai Reddy) and Crl. M.P. No. 1419/2020 is filed by the petitioner/A-5 (Jagati Publications Ltd.) under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. requesting to take up the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence i.e. C.C. No. 26/2013 before S.C. No. 1/2018. Crl.M.P.No. 1420/2020 is filed by the petitioner/A-2 (V. Vijay Sai Reddy) and Crl.M.P.No. 1421/2020 is filed by the petitioner/A-9 (Caramel Asia Holdings Pvt. Ltd.) under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. requesting to take up the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence i.e. C.C.No. 27/2013 before S.C.No. 2/2018. 2. All the above applications are filed by raising the same contentions in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re incomplete and were stopped midway in view of the outbreak of COVID Pandemic and needs to start/resume at same point. (f) The Court s direction to now commence S.C. No. 1/2016 would be a departure from earlier orders and procedure adopted by the orders of this Court. This Court has fixed a procedure for hearing of the matters pursuant to orders in Crl. M.P. No. 677/2013 by further orders made on 17.01.2020. The two orders have set the procedural basis for the conduct of cases which is in consonance with the principles of right to fair trial. No occasion or reason has arisen for making any abrupt departure from the settled procedure, particularly in view of the orders already passed in Crl.M.P. No. 1891/2017, a simultaneous hearing would mean hearing both matters together or in immediate succession. (g) In the very nature of predicate offence and subsequent offence the question of hearing a subsequent offence first cannot and would not arise and prayed to take up the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence i.e. C.C.No. 9/2012 before S.C.No. 1/2016 in the interest of justice. 3. Respondent/complainant has filed common counters affidavits in all the Crl. M. Ps and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e court shall not be construed as joint trial; (f) As per the above provision, it clearly sets out that the trial for the offence of money laundering is independent trial and it is governed by its own provisions and it need not get interfered by the trial of scheduled offence. (g) Petitioner has taken plea of the order dt.17.01.2020 of this Court wherein it is mentioned that trial of scheduled offence and trial of offence punishable under PMLA be proceeded simultaneously . The order of this Court has been misinterpreted and misrepresented to suit their convenience and stall the ongoing trial proceedings in S.C.No. 1/2016. The said order is to the effect that trial of scheduled offence and trial of offence under PMLA to be proceeded simultaneously and it does not say that the trial of the offence of money laundering cannot take precedence over the trial for scheduled offence and even the PMLA does not speak that trial proceedings under the Act should follow trial proceedings under scheduled offence. The trial for the offence of money launder and the trial for scheduled offence are not joint trial and the fate of the former does not depend on the latter. Petitioner always c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 27 of 2013, and the offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 i.e. SC.No. 1 of 2016, SC.No. 2 of 2016, SC.No. 2 of 2017, SC.No. 1 of 2018 and SC.No. 2 of 2018 simultaneously either by hearing both the matters together or in immediate succession in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case. 5. Heard both sides through video conference and perused the record. 6. Now, the points for determination are : (1) Whether the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence i.e. C.C. No. 9/2012, C.C.No. 10/2012, C.C.No. 24/2013, C.C.No. 26/ 2013 and C.C.No. 27/2013 be taken up before S.C.No. 1/2016, S.C.No. 2/2016, S.C. No. 2/2017, S.C. No. 1/2018 and S.C.No. 2/ 2018 (As per the prayer in the original petition) ? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to mould the prayer in the original petition by filing a memo, that to take up the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence and the offence of money laundering simultaneously , is it permissible under law ? If so? (3) To what relief ? 7. (i) Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/A-3 (M/s. Jagati Publications Ltd.) in Crl.M.P.No. 1411/2020, Crl.M.P.No. 1415/2020, for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Directorate of Enforcement [(2019) 9 SCC 24.] 11. B.R.V.S atyanarayana vs. The State [1976 SCC OnLine AP 111 = 1977 CriLJ 1038.] 12. Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [1985 (1) SCC 422.] 13. Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India and another [(2018) 11 SCC 1.] 8. Sri E.Uma Maheswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner/A-2 (Sri V. Vijay Sai Reddy) in Crl.M.P.No. 1412/2020, Crl.M.P.No. 1414/2020, Crl.M.P. No. 1416/2020, Crl.M.P.No. 1418/2020 and Crl.M.P.No. 1420/2020 has contended that commencement of S.C.No. 1/2016, S.C.No. 2/2016, S.C.No. 2/2017, S.C.No. 1/ 2018 and S.C.No. 2/2018 before scheduled offences (CCs) would be a departure from the earlier orders and procedure adopted by the Court in Crl.M.P.No. 677/2013, dt.19.12.2014 and Crl.M.P.No. 1892/2017, Crl.M.P.No. 1959/ 2017, Crl.M.P.No. 2105/2017, Crl.M.P.No. 3852/2019 and Crl.M.P.No. 3855/2019, dt.17.01.2020. 9. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent/complainant/ ED has contended as under : That money laundering offence has to be tried independently which is fortified by Section 44 of PMLA, 2002. By the date of filing counters in Crl.M.P.No. 1891/2017 and batch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that both the offences i.e. predicate offence/scheduled offence and offence under money laundering be tried together, but money laundering cannot be tried ahead of the predicate/scheduled offence. Explanation to Section 44(1)(d) of PML Act does not say that money laundering offence should precede further to predicate offence. Stand-alone is meant for the ingredients of the offences but not for the purpose of treating it as a separate offence. Money laundering offence starts at the end of the predicate/scheduled offence. Harbouring of offence is a stand-alone offence. 11. (i) Before answering the points, it is apt to say the cases filed by CBI and Enforcement Directorate against the petitioners. (ii) (a) CBI, Hyderabad has filed charge sheet in R.C.19(A)/2011-CBI/HYD against Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy/A-1, Sri V. Vijay Sai Reddy/A-2 and M/s. Jagati Publications Ltd./A-3 and the same is numbered as C.C.No. 9/2012. Enforcement Directorate basing on the scheduled offence filed a private complaint against A-1 to A-3 under Section 200 Cr.P.C r/w Section 45, 3, 4, 8(5) of PMLA, 2002 before learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide S.C.No. 106/2015, the same is transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heduled offence (C.C.No.24/2013) vide Crl.M.P.No.2104/2017, Crl.M.P.No.2105/2017 and Crl.M.P.No.2106/2017, the above said applications came to be dismissed vide common order dt.17.01.2020. (v) (a) CBI, Hyderabad has filed charge sheet in R.C.19(A)/2011-CBI/HYD against Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy/A-1 and eight others and the same is numbered as C.C.No.26/2013. Sri V. Vijay Sai Reddy is shown as A-2 and M/s. Jagati Publications Ltd. is shown as A-5 in the above said CC. Enforcement Directorate basing on the scheduled offence filed a private complaint against A-1 to A-11 under Section 200 Cr.P.C r/w Section 45, 3, 4, 8(5) of PMLA, 2002 before this Court and the same is numbered as S.C.No.1/2018. (b) Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy/A-1, Sri V. Vijay Sai Reddy/A-2, M/s. Jagati Publications Ltd./A-5 in S.C.No.1/2018 have filed three separate applications under Section 309 of Cr.P.C requesting to defer all further proceedings in the above said SC till the conclusion of the adjudication of the scheduled offence (C.C.No.26/2013) vide Crl.M.P.No.3851/2019 Crl.M.P.No.3852/2019 and Crl.M.P.No.3853/2019, the above said applications came to be dismissed vide common order dt.17.01.2020. (vi) (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ode or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. 14. (i) Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy/A-1 (in all the SCs), Sri V. Vijay Sai Reddy/ A-2 (in all the SCs), M/s. Jagati Publications Ltd./A-3 (in S.C.No.1/2016 and S.C.No.2/2016) and A-5 (in S.C.No.2/2017 and S.C.No.1/2018) and M/s. Caramel Asia Holdings Pvt. Ltd./A-9 (in S.C.No.2/2018) have filed separate set of applications in all the SCs under Section 309 Cr.P.C., requesting to defer all further proceedings in all the SCs till the conclusion of the adjudication in the scheduled offence, or in alternate till completion of investigation in ECIR.No.9/HZO/2011 corresponding to RC.19(A/2011. The criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by the above said accused are shown in para No.10(ii)(b), 10(iii)(b), 10(iv)(b), 10(v)(b) and 10(vi)(b) supra and were dismissed on 17.01.2020. (ii) (a) It is observed in the common order dt.17.01.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.1891/2017 (filed by M/s. Jagati Publications Ltd./A-3), Crl.M.P.No.1892/2017 (filed by Sri V. Vijay Sai Reddy/A-2) and Crl.M.P.No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act but that difficulty would have arisen when the question would have been there for clubbing of the charges. Here, the point is never related to clubbing of the charges, rather the point is whether the Special Court can proceed simultaneously with the trial of the scheduled offence as well as trial of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Keeping in view the provision as is enshrined in Section 3 postulating therein that whoever is connected with the proceeds of the crime projecting it as untainted property would be committing offence of Money Laundering Act and further that the proceeds of crime must have been derived or obtained, directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to scheduled offence in terms of sub-section (u) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, there has been no doubt that unless one is held guilty for the scheduled offences, he cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act but hardly there appears to any embargo for the special court to proceed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made out against the petitioner. Another reason specified in the said closure report is that the said accounts and disproportionate assets were a subject matter of investigation by the SIT UP Police in FIR No.04/2011 dated 03.05.2011. (iii) In Rajiv Channa s case [W.P.(C).No.6293/2014, dt.19.09.2014 of High Court of Delhi.] , the Hon ble High Court of Delhi has held at para Nos.13, 15, 18 and 19 as under: Para 13. It is apparent from the above definition of the expression proceeds of crime that existence of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is the substratal condition for existence of proceeds of crime and the applicability of the provisions of Section 5 of the PMLA. Essentially, the edifice of PMLA rests on the foundation of existence of a scheduled offence. Para 15. .......proceeds of crime by its definition - are nonexistent if the scheduled offence which is stated to give rise to those proceeds is itself negated. Accordingly, acquittal of a concerned person of charges of a scheduled offence, ipso facto, erodes the foundation of the offence of money laundering. Para 18. ......It was argued by the learned ASG that acquittal of the person a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. (v) In Inspector of Police, CBI s case [2019 SCC OnLine Ker 4546 = (2019) 4 KLT 820 = (2020) 372 ELT 209.] , the Hon ble High Court of Kerala has held at para Nos.10, 12 and 32 as under : Para 10. .........The scheme of the Act clearly shows that, Money Laundering, though an offence by itself, is inextricably connected to a scheduled offences (predicate offences). The schedule discloses that the predicate offences cover a variety of statutes. Para 12. ........it can be said that, conviction of an offence under the Money Laundering Act depends on the establishment of predicate offence and the generation of proceeds of that crime. Para 32. ........it may be possible that scheduled offences can be tried only by notified or designated courts, which power, cannot be exercised by the special court under the Mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the petitioner for harbouring A-1 to A-4, who committed the offences of robbery, punishable under Sec. 392 IPC. (ix) In ED s case [C.C.No.1/2014, dt.21.12.2017 in the Court of O.P.Saini, Spl. Judge, CBI (04)/PMLA (2G Spectrum Cases), New Delhi.] , has held at para Nos.159, 160, 162, 166, 167 as under: Para 159..........Thus, for commission of an offence of money-laundering, there should be a scheduled offence and out of that offence, the accused must have derived or obtained proceeds of crime and having obtained such proceeds, must have projected or claimed it as untainted. Para 160. Thus, Proceeds of crime is the essence and an indispensable element of the offence of money-laundering. It is the core constituent of the offence. Without the existence of proceeds of crime, there cannot be any commission of an offence of money-laundering. It is only when proceeds of crime is projected or attempted to be projected as untainted property, the offence of money-laundering arises. Para 162. In nutshell, the existence of a scheduled offence and emergence of proceeds of crime therefrom, is sine qua non for the existence of the offence of money-laundering. Para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an universal principle of law that when a matter has been finally disposed of by a Court, such court is functus officio in respect of the matter the absence of a direct statutory provision, the Court which became functus officio cannot entertain afresh prayer for the same relief unless and until in the previous order of final disposal has been set aside. It is this cardinal principle of universal application that has been incorporated in section 369 of the old Code and section 362 of the new Code. If an application for a certain prayer based on certain facts has been disposed of by the Court, entertaining a fresh application with the same prayer on the same facts is not permissible as such course involves the cancellation or alteration or review of the previous order unless there is a specific provision in the Code or in any other law permitting the cancellation, alteration or review of the earlier order. Para 7. In the instant case, the petitioner s revision application against the order of the learned Sessions Judge was dismissed on 11-5-76 after hearing the petitioner s learned Counsel Sri Dwaraknath. We have perused the order and find that it is a regular order passed on m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... using such property, would be guilty of the offence, provided such persons also project or claim such property as untainted property. Section 3, therefore, contains all the aforesaid ingredients, and before somebody can be adjudged as guilty under the said provision, the said person must not only be involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, but must also project or claim it as being untainted property. Para 13. Under Section 5 of the Act, attachment of such property takes place so that such property may be brought back into the economy. Coming now to Chapter VII of the Act with which we are really concerned, Section 43 lays down that Special Courts to try offences under the Act are to be designated for such area or areas or for such case or class or group of cases as may be specified by notification. Section 44 is very important in that the section provides for the trial of a scheduled offence and the offence of money laundering together by the same Special Court, which is to try such offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure as if it were a Court of Session. Under Section 46, read with Section 65 of the Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion warrants. We are not inclined to hold that the trial, if conducted, would be an empty formality. Para 19. Accordingly, the above Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that the Principal Session Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, shall not be influenced by any of the observation made by us in this order while disposing of C.C.No.56 of 2018. We further direct the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.9796 of 2019 Chennai, to expedite the trial and dispose of C.C.No.56 of 2018 within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (b) M/s. VGN Developers Pvt. Ltd. aggrieved by the orders of the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras filed Special Leave Appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10627/2019. The Hon ble Supreme Court vide order dt.17.12.2019 has passed the order, which is as under : Learned Solicitor General states that in the peculiar facts of this case, further proceedings in the complaint filed by the respondent being CC No.56/2018 pending before the Special Court, Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chenn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the PML Act. In this background, when Section 44 of the PML Act is perused, it would clearly indicate that special court may take cognizance of the offence upon a complaint by authorized signatory, which means cognizance will be taken of an offence which is separate and independent. The object of issuance of summons is to trace or ascertain the proceeds of crime if any and to take steps in that regard like attaching the proceeds of crime if proved in a given case. Para 27. Even in case of a person who is not booked for a scheduled offence but is later booked and subsequently acquitted for the offences punishable under different 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 persons who are accused of a scheduled 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 scheduled offence. The prosecution can be independ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad; Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that ‗proceeds of crime including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence; (Ins. by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, sec. 192(iii) (w.e.f. 1-8-2019). Section 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 proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,- (Ins. By the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, sec. 193 (w.e.f. 1-8-2019). (i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offence and the trial of both sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as joint trial. 18. (i) Respondent/ED has filed counters in Crl.M.P.No.1891/2017 in S.C.No.1/2016 (filed by M/s. Jagati Publications Ltd.) and other connected petitions filed by Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, Sri V. Vijay Sai Reddy on 01.09.2017. It is stated in the counters filed by respondent/ED in the above said applications that Respondent/ED Department intended to have fair trial by way of having common/ joint trial of both predicate offence and offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, however the petitioners are objecting for such fair trial . The above said applications filed by the petitioners were under Section 309 Cr.P.C requesting to defer all further proceedings in all the SCs till conclusion of the adjudication in the scheduled offence, which were dismissed vide common orders dt.17.01.2020. E.D. filed counters in the above said Crl.M.Ps on 01.09.2017, by that date there was no amendment to PML Act, 2002. Amendment to Section 2(1)(u), 3 and 44(1)(d) Explanation of PML Act, 2002, came through the Finance (N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders of the Hon ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad vide CRLP.No.3988/2016, CRLP.No.11942/2018 and W.P.No.2253/2018, dt.21.01.2019. (iii) M/s. India Cements Ltd. is shown as A-7 in the predicate/scheduled offence (C.C.No.24/2013) and proceedings against the company are stayed by the Hon ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad vide IA.No.2/2020 in CRLP.No.12989/2016, dt.02.03.2020 for a period of four weeks. M/s. India Cements Ltd. is also shown as A-7 in money laundering case (S.C.No.2/2017). (iv) M/s. Janani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is shown as A-8 in money laundering case (S.C.No.2/2017). CBI has not prosecuted/not booked M/s. Janani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in the predicate/scheduled offence (C.C.No.24/2013). 20. It is germane to note that M/s. Janani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is shown as A-10 and M/s. Indira Television Ltd. is shown as A-11 in money laundering case (S.C.No.1/2018) and they are not prosecuted/not booked in the predicate/scheduled offence (C.C.No.26/2013). 21. (i) K.Ratnaprabha is shown as A-7 in the predicate/scheduled offence (C.C.No.27/2013) and proceedings against her are quashed by the Hon ble High Court of Judic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The investigation under the scheduled offence is altogether different with that of the investigation done under PML Act, and it cannot be said that predicate offence hinges upon the offence of money laundering. PML Act, 2002, further clarifies that a person who has not committed a scheduled offence, can be prosecuted for the offence of money laundering. Under Section 24 of PML Act, the burden of proving proceeds of crime is that on the accused, which is a matter of trial. 23. (i) On careful reading of Section 43(2) of PML Act, it does not contemplate a trial of predicate/scheduled offence and the offence of money laundering simultaneously. The section only says that while trying an offence under the Act, a Special Court shall also try an offence, other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) with which the accused may under the Code of Criminal Procedure be charged at the same trial. (ii) On reading of Section 44(1)(a) of PML Act, it only says that the offence punishable under Section 4 (PML Act) and any scheduled offence connected to the offence under that section shall be triable by the Special Court, in which the offence has been committed. The plain reading of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er a Writ Petition is preferred before the High Court and the same was dismissed. Vijay has approached the Hon ble Supreme Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that appellant (Vijay) was elected in terms of the provisions of statute. The right to be elected was created by a statute and thus can be taken away by a statute, the provision gives a retrospective effect and appeal was dismissed. (b) The matter fell for consideration before the Hon ble Supreme Court is with regard to amended proviso to Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, but not the word Explanation . The ratio of the said decision has no application in the present case. (ii) (a) In Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Delhi [Judgment in Civil Appeal No.8750 of 2014, dt.15.09.2014 of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India.] , the question of law which has fallen for consideration before the Hon ble Supreme Court is as to whether the proviso appended to Section 113 of Income Tax Act which was inserted in that Section by the Finance Act, 2002, is to operate prospectively or is clarificatory and curative in nature and therefore has a retrospective operation. The Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the amendment to Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make it consistent with the dominant object which it seems to subserve. (c) to provide an additional support to the dominant object of the Act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful. (d) an Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the Act it can help or assist the Court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment, and (e) it cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person under a statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming an hindrance in the interpretation of the same. 29. The opening words used in the Explanation to Section 2(1)(u), 3, 44(1)(d) are for the removal of doubt, it is clarified that . In Lok Sabha debate, it is debated that six are only explanations to the existing clause. The clause itself is not being changed. We are only coming with explanations. Therefore, the amendment is not amendment of the clause itself. It is more explaining the clause. 30. The Explanations added to Sections 2( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the offence of money laundering are not inextricably linked to each of the offences. 35. (i) (a) The facts in Arun Kumar Mishra [2015 SCC OnLine Del 8658 = (2015) 2 DLT (Cri) 731.] are that CBI-SPE, Dehradun has registered RC.No.0072011A003, dt.02.01.2011 against five persons under IPC and P.C. Act, alleging that false entries are made in 71 Accounts of Punjab National Bank during November, 2005 to December, 2016. CBI has filed charge sheet in the first set of 5 Accounts on 09.09.2011 before Special Judge, Dehradun against A.K.Mishra and 2 others. Regarding 66 Accounts, CBI has filed closure report on 08.08.2014. A.K.Mishra has challenged the charge sheet dt.09.09.2011 by moving quash petition before the Hon ble High Court of Uttarakhand and the same was allowed on 13.10.2014. Basing on the R.C. registered by CBI, ED has registered a case bearing ECIR No.03/DZ/2011/AD(SC)/SDS, dt.24.02.2011 against A.K.Mishra and others on 24.02.2011 under Section 3 of PML Act. A.K.Mishra filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in ECIR, the Hon ble High Court has held that prior to Amendment Act, 2009, none of the provisions which are now invoked by ED were on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in violation of Article 20(1) of Constitution of India. The ratio laid down in the above said decision by the Hon ble Supreme Court is on power under, to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, which has no application to the present case. (viii) In B.R.V. Satyanarayana [1976 SCC OnLine AP 111 = 1977 CriLJ 1038.] Revision was dismissed on 11.05.1976 and by order dt.08.06.1976 it cancelled the order (dt.11.05.1976) and admitted the revision on Court s file, thereafter the matter is referred to a Bench. The Hon ble Bench has held that the order dt.11.05.1976 is a final order, it cannot be altered or reviewed in view of Section 362 of Cr.P.C and dismissed the revision. The above said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. (ix) The ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh [1985 (1) SCC 422.] is clubbing and consolidating two cases, one on a police challan and the other on a complaint and held that two cases should be tried together by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and the evidence should be recorded separately one after the other. That is not the situation in the present case, hence the above decision is not applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Section 362 Cr.P.C. On careful reading of the section, in my view the orders (dt.17.01.2020) does not fall within the scope of the section. (ii) Insofar as the memo filed by the petitioners to read the prayer as to take up the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence and in the offence under PML Act simultaneously either by hearing both the matters together or in immediate succession is not permissible under law which entirely changes the prayer portion of the main petition, even otherwise, as discussed supra offence under PMLA is stand-alone offence which is not inextricably linked to predicate/scheduled offence. 39. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, are two different enactments, they decide the controversies that arise under respective Acts, one authority cannot interfere with the function of other authority under different Acts. PML Act has overriding effect under Section 71. Hence point No.1 and 2 answered accordingly. 40. In view of my discussions above, there are no merits in the applications and the same are dismissed. Point No. 3 : 41. In the result, Crl.M.P.No.1411/2020 and Crl.M.P.No.1412/2020 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
