TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in discharge of his official duties. Therefore, apparently there is no need to examine the complainant and the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code before issuance of the process. A bare perusal of Section 3 of the Act, makes it abundantly clear that it provides for punishment for involvement in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime - What is the allegation in the instant case is that the petitioners prepared forged documents, used them as genuine and untainted. In the instant case, the FIR was filed for offences under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and here, in the instant case, the complaint is filed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Both are distinct offences. The acts are also different. They are not the same offence. Therefore, apparently the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India are not attracted in the instant case. Instant complaint case is not a second trial. The petitioners have never been tried before - In so far as Section 300 of the Code is concerned, it is also not applicable, it deals with the situation when the person once convicted or acquitted is tried for the same offence again. This Section bars such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners and others. These proceedings are questioned in this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that proceeding of the case cannot continue under law. It is argued that with regard to the loan, a claim was made by the bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short, DRT ), which was allowed. But, during execution proceedings, the matter was settled and the due amount was paid by the petitioners to the Bank. 5. It is argued that long thereafter, the complaint has been filed under the Act. Learned counsel also raised the following points in his arguments. (i) The provisions of the Act are not attracted in this case because the loan has already been paid. (ii) The proceedings of the case cannot be simultaneously taken against a person, it is barred by virtue of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short, General Clauses Act ), Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code ) and Article 20 Sub-Clause (2) of the Constitution of India. (iii) The proceedings are time barred in view of Section 468 of the Code. (iv) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others, (2006)6 SCC 736. In para 12 of it, the Hon ble Court observed as hereunder:- 12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few- Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059] , Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045] , State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628] , Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] , Medchl Chemicals Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615] , Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] , M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rguments have been raised on the ground of jurisdiction, non-maintainability for the reasons that a proceeding had already been taken place and that the loan had been returned. 13. Arguments have been advanced with regard to the non-compliance of Sections 200 and 202 of the Code. The provisions of Section 200 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to proceed straightway without conducting inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code. This proviso is as hereunder:- 200. Examination of complainant.- A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses- (a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a court has made the complaint; or (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Section 192: Provided further that if th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or indirectly beneficiary of POC. He indulged or knowingly involved in process/activities of possession, acquisition; use/concealment of the POC hence appears to have committed offence of money laundering under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which is punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 11.3 Parminder Singh (Accused No.3) Parminder Singh is one of the partners of M/s Luxmi Auto Industries and is the main accused in this case. He had taken loan from Central Bank of India, Roorkee Branch for his firm namely M/s Luxmi Auto Industries by submitting forged property documents to the bank as collateral security. Further, the said loan amount was transferred to the accounts of fake/paper companies namely M/s Ludhiana Steel Industries and M/s Thuman Industries for purchasing of machinery parts etc. for the firm M/s. Luxmi Auto Industries. Parminder Singh in connivance with Satish Kumar Gupta has generated funds to the tune of Rs.1.71 Cr. Through criminal activity related to the scheduled offence. It also revealed that the accused persons have used their fake/paper company accounts in the name of M/s Ludhiana Stee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; (ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever. 4. Punishment for money-laundering.- Whoever commits the offence of money-laundering shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine 3***: Provided that where the proceeds of crime involved in money-laundering relates to any offence specified under paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, the provisions of this section shall have effect as if for the words which may extend to seven years , the words which may extend to ten years had been substituted. 17. A bare perusal of Section 3 of the Act, makes it abundantly clear that it provides for punishment for involvement in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. 18. Proceeds of Crime has been defined under Section 2(U) of he Act, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the same offence again. This Section bars such trial. Instant complaint case is not a second trial. The petitioners have never been tried out. 25. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act also makes provisions with regard to an act which falls as an offence under different statutes. This section reads as hereunder:- 26. Provision as to offences punishable under two or more enactments.- Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. 26. It may be noted that the offence under the Act is not as such an offence, as defined under the IPC. As the Section 3 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that it is an activity connected with the proceeds of crime. 27. In the case of P. Chidambaram vs. Director orate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24. Hon ble Supreme Court has discussed this concept of money laundering and observed, in the case of money laundering, where it involves many staging of placement , layering i.e. funds moved to other institutions to conceal origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
