TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the petitioner was remanded to custody by the learned Special Judge at Ernakulam under Section 167(2) of the Code and that, therefore, the filing of the complaint at Lucknow is impermissible, is not legally well-founded. The petitioner was arrested on 12.12.2020 in Kerala and, hence, he was produced before the Magistrate on 13.12.2020, who remanded him to judicial custody till 24.12.2020. Therefore, the NIA moved an application under Section 167 of the Code before the Principal Sessions Judge, Ernakulam for the grant of Enforcement Directorate custody for a period of 14 days. An order under Section 167(2) of the Code had to be passed necessarily by the Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded . In fact, Section 167(2) contains the words whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case . Therefore, the argument revolving around Section 167(2) of the Code also fails. This transfer petition is dismissed. - TRANSFER PETITION ( CRIMINAL ) NO. 89 OF 2023 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2023 - V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN And PANKAJ MITHAL , JJ. For the Petitioner : Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Abdul Shukoor Mondambra, Adv. Mr. Shaikh S.Dastgir, Adv. Mr. Shaikh Nikali Barsha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viction of all those in the aforesaid proceedings, the Enforcement Directorate registered an information report in ECIR/02/HIU/2018 on 02.05.2018, in connection with the aforesaid scheduled/predicate offence for which those 22 persons were prosecuted and convicted. In column No.4 of the said ECIR, the place of occurrence was indicated as 8 Km West from Mayyil Police Station at Pamburuthi Road, Narath, Kannur District, Kerala . This ECIR was registered by the Enforcement Directorate, HIU, Headquarters at Delhi. (vi) Thereafter, a fresh complaint in FIR No.199/2020 was registered by Maunt Police Station, Mathura District, on 07.10.2020 for alleged offences under Sections 153A, 295A and 124A IPC and Sections 14 and 17 of UAPA read with Sections 65, 72 and 76 of the Information Technology Act. This FIR was against 4 persons and the petitioner was not named therein. (vii) However, in connection with the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate on 02.05.2018, the petitioner was arrested on 12.12.2020. Subsequently, a prosecution complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of PMLA was filed by the Assistant Director, Enforcement, New Delhi on the file of the Special Judge, PMLA, Luckn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 14 witnesses cited in the supplementary complaint dated 06.05.2022 and 5 out of 9 witnesses cited in the combined prosecution complaint dated 18.11.2022 are from Kerala/South India; and (iv) that the petitioner was lawfully remanded to custody by learned Special Judge, Ernakulam under Section 167(2) of the Code and hence the filing of the prosecution complaint at Lucknow is impermissible. 5. However, it is contended by Sh. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General: (i) that the question of territorial jurisdiction is already settled by this Court in Rana Ayyub vs. Directorate of Enforcement through its Assistant Director 2023 SCC OnLine SC 109 and that if tested on the anvil of the principles laid down therein, the above transfer petition is misconceived; and (ii) that the petition for transfer, filed after the commencement of examination-in-chief of PW-1 and after the dismissal of the discharge application of one of the co-accused, is an abuse of the process of law. 6. We have carefully considered the above submissions. 7. In Rana Ayyub (supra), two questions arose for consideration and they were as follows: 16. (i) whether the trial of the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the offence of moneylaundering has been committed. To put it differently, the area in which the place of acquisition of the proceeds of crime is located or the place of keeping it in possession is located or the place in which it is concealed is located or the place in which it is used is located, will be the area in which the offence has been committed. 10. Therefore, irrespective of where the FIR relating to the scheduled offence was filed and irrespective of which Court took cognizance of the scheduled offence, the question of territorial jurisdiction of a Special Court to take cognizance of a compliant under PMLA should be decided with reference to the place/places where anyone of the activities/processes which constitute the offence under Section 3 took place. In this case it is alleged in paragraph 3.6 of the combined prosecution complaint filed on 18.11.2022 as follows: 3. Brief Summary of cause of action under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 3.6 Moreover, in UP Police Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) FIR No. 04/2021 dated 16.02.2021 [u/s 120B and 121A of IPC; 13, 16, 18 and 20 of UAPA; 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosives Act and 3 and 25 of the Arms Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
