TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... post amendment i.e., rendered in 2022 and what Jagjeet Singh case deals with is, right of a victim. This has been elucidatively articulated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of Jagjeet Singh case, holding that Until recently, criminal law had been viewed on a dimensional plane wherein the Courts were required to adjudicate between the accused and the State. The 'victim' - the de facto sufferer of a crime had no participation in the adjudicatory process and was made to sit outside the Court as a mute spectator. However, with the recognition that the ethos of criminal justice dispensation to prevent and punish 'crime' had surreptitiously turned its back on the 'victim', the jurisprudence with respect to the rights of victims to be heard and to participate in criminal proceedings began to positively evolve.' This Court has no hesitation in saying that victimology has no application to implead petitioner. Whether the settlement money has not changed hands? - HELD THAT:- This is a case where there is nothing to demonstrate that there is 'proceeds of crime'. This is a private transaction between private individuals / en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Mr.N.R.Elango Senior counsel assisted by Mr.E.V.Chandru @ E.Chandrasekaran and instructed by Mr.R.Vivekananthan Mr.S.Senthil Murugan Ms.M.Kruthika Mr.J.Mahesh In Crl.O.P.Nos.14795, 14804 14860, 14899 14901 of 2023 : Mr.N.R.Elango Senior counsel assisted by Mr.E.V.Chandru @ E.Chandrasekaran and instructed by Mr.M.Nagoor Moideen, Mr.R.Krishna Kumar, Mr.C.Loganathan, Mr.S.Ganesh, Mr.K.Saravanan For the Petitioner in Crl.MP.No.9244 of 2023 : Mr.P.Vijendran assisted by Ms.K.Mani Kuyil For the Respondent in all Crl.Ops and For Respondent No.1 in Crl.MP.9244 of 2023 : Mr.P.Sidharthan Special Public Prosecutor (ED Cases) along with Mr.Cibi Vishnu Special Public Prosecutor (ED Cases) For the Respondent No.2 in Crl.MP.9244 of 2023 : Mr.N.R.Elango Senior counsel assisted by Mr.E.V.Chandru @ E.Chandrasekaran and instructed by Mr.R.Vivekananthan, Mr.S.Senthil Murugan, Ms.M.Kruthika, Mr.J.Mahesh COMMON ORDER M.SUNDAR, J., This common order will now dispose of captioned 6 'main criminal original petitions' ('Crl.OPs' in plural and 'Crl.OP' in singular for the sake of brevity) and captioned 7 'criminal miscellaneous petitions' (&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven vide an order dated 05.06.2023 pursuant to closure report dated 02.06.2023; that the closure report is based on de facto complainant and petitioner resorting to arbitration proceedings before Singapore International Arbitration Centre [SIAC] vide SIAC ARB No.113/22 BRP consolidated with Arb No.114/22 BRP; that proceedings before SIAC is underway; that when predicate offence has been given closure, there cannot be ECIR under PMLA as standalone proceedings and therefore, summons deserves to be interfered with is learned Senior counsel's say. 4. This Court having set out the crux and gravamen qua captioned Crl.OP, perused records and noticed that the aforementioned closure report dated 02.06.2023 captures arbitration proceedings before SIAC in paragraph No.7 and the same reads as follows: '7) It is submitted that it is ascertained that the complainant's company initiated Arbitration Proceeding before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) vide SIAC ARB No.113/22 BRP consolidated with ARB No.114/22 BRP and the same is still pending before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.' 5. It also comes to light that summons was origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e., while dealing with a case of continuation of proceedings vide ECIR, despite predicate offence having been quashed by judgment of High Court of Bombay, quashed the ECIR proceedings inter alia by placing reliance on aforementioned Vijay Madanlal Choudhary principle. 8. To be noted, another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court also vide order dated 01.11.2022 in W.P.No.10854 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.13179 of 2020 has taken a similar view. 9. In the light of the narrative thus far, prima facie case made out. 10. Issue notice. 11. Mr.S.Sasikumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Enforcement Directorate accepts notice for respondent and seeks three weeks time for filing objections. 12. As prima facie case has been made out and as it is clear that there is possibility of an irreversible situation if ECIR proceedings continue pending main Crl. OP, the balance of convenience is in favour of grant of interim order that has been sought for. Therefore, there shall be an interim order as prayed for in the captioned criminal miscellaneous petition [Crl.M.P.No.7975 of 2023 in Crl.O.P.No.13132 of 2023] insofar as the petitioner is concerned till next listing. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... go, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of counsel on record for petitioner submits, on instructions that summons directs appearance of petitioner on 01.06.2023 but the same has been rescheduled to 13.06.2023. 3. The central theme of captioned Crl.OP is that there can be no ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) under 'the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002' [hereinafter 'PMLA' for the sake of convenience and clarity] against an individual or entity when closure has been given to predicate offence; that in the case on hand, predicate offence is vide Crime No.187 of 2022 on the file of Chennai-CCB PS CCB-1 for alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of 'Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' ['IPC' for brevity]; that predicate offence was on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases [relating to cheating cases in Chennai] and CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai, wherein a closure was given vide an order dated 05.06.2023 pursuant to closure report dated 02.06.2023; that the closure report is based on de facto complainant and petitioner resorting to arbitration proceedings before Singap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 2002 Act is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity connected with such property, which constitutes the offence of money-laundering. The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and / or pending enquiry / trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. If the person is finally discharged / acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money-laundering against him or any one claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him.' 7. As regards Harish Fabiani case, a Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in a case of similar factual matrix i.e., while dealing with a case of continuation of proceedings vide ECIR, despite predicate offence having been quashed by judgment of High Court of Bombay, quashed the ECIR proceedings inter alia by placing r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2023 in main Crl.O.P.No.13132 of 2023 has been taken out by a third party with a prayer to implead the petitioner thereat as second respondent in that main Crl.OP. This Crl.MP i.e., 'Crl.M.P.No.9244 of 2023' shall be referred to as 'implead Crl.MP' for the sake of convenience and clarity. 2. Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.E.V.Chandru @ Chandrasekar, learned counsel, instructed by Mr.R.Vivekananthan, Ms.M.Kruthika, Mr.M.Nagoor Moideen and Mr.R.Krishna Kumar, learned counsel on record for the petitioners in all six captioned Crl.OPs adverted to earlier proceedings made in the previous listings and made further submissions which shall be captured elsewhere infra in this order. 3. To be noted, this proceedings shall be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listings. In other words, proceedings made in the previous listings shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this proceedings. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners adverting to the earlier proceedings made the following further submissions: (i) In a case with similar factual matrix, another Hon ble Coordinate Divi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases; (ii) On the basis of Section 301 clause (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure [ Cr.P.C. for the sake of brevity] the petitioner has got locus to seek impleadment. 6. As regards learned Special Public Prosecutor, Mr.P.Sidharthan made the following submissions: (i) Reliance was placed on paragraph 269 of Vijay Madanlal s case [to be noted, para 269 as in SCC OnLine report i.e., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 ] to say that even a bare reading of language of Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter PMLA Act for the sake of convenience and clarity], money laundering is an independent offence; (ii) Even according to the settlement agreement made in SIAC [Singapore International Arbitration Centre], the settlement amount has actually not changed hands and according to learned Special Public Prosecutor this is proceeds of the crime. This according to learned Special Public Prosecutor is the distinguising feature qua Anil Jain s case; (iii) The argument that the closure was on 05.06.2023 close on the heels of summons to the petitioner was made but this was put to rest as it was pointed out that the settlement arrived at i.e., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the two FIRs and criminal complaints against the implead petitioner. 5. Mr.P.Vijendran, learned counsel for implead petitioner relied heavily on clause (2) of Section 301 of Cr.P.C which reads as follows: ' 301. Appearance by Public Prosecutors - (1) ........................... (2) If in any such case any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and may, with the permission of the Court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case.' 6. Adverting to clause (2) of Section 301 of Cr.PC, learned counsel for implead petitioner submitted that when any private person instructs a Pleader to prosecute any person in a Court, learned Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor as the case may, shall conduct the prosecution and Pleader shall be instructed i.e., instructed by a private person may with permission of the Court file written arguments after evidence is closed in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lways to be confused with the locus to bring a proceeding under Article 32. These two matters often mingle and coalesce with the result that it becomes difficult to consider them in watertight compartments. The question whether a person has the locus to file a proceeding depends mostly and often on whether he possesses a legal right and that right is violated. But, in an appropriate case, it may become necessary in the changing awareness of legal rights and social obligations to take a broader view of the question of locus, to initiate a proceeding, be it under Article 226 or under Article 32 of the Constitution. If public property is dissipated, it would require a strong argument to convince the Court that representative segments of the public or at least a section of the public which is directly interested and affected would have no right to complain of the infraction of public duties and obligations. Public enterprises are owned by the people and those who run them are accountable to the people. The accountability of the public sector to Parliament is ineffective because the parliamentary control of public enterprises is diffuse and haphazard . We are not too sure if we would h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 2004 Cri LJ 3635] and supported the contention of implead petitioner that he (implead petitioner) is entitled to join the fray in the light of clause (2) of Section 301 of Cr.P.C. 9. Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior counsel instructed by counsel on record for petitioner in main Crl.OP (second respondent in the implead petition, i.e., Crl.M.P.No.9244 of 2023) submitted that clause (2) of Section 301 of Cr.P.C. operates in the arena of victimology which is part of evolved form of criminal jurisprudence (a recent phenomenon) but victimology has no application qua implead petitioner and therefore, this facet of criminal jurisprudence does not come to implead petitioner's aid is his further say. In support of his contention, learned Senior counsel drew our attention to proviso to Section 372, Section 2(wa) and proviso to Section 24(8) of Cr.PC. Learned Senior counsel submitted that all these provisions have been brought into Cr.PC by way of an amendment and the same kicked in on 31.12.2009 and argued that it is clear that a person who wants to come on board qua criminal proceedings vide clause (2) of Section 301 of Cr.PC should be in the realm of a victim and in the case on hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCC 533 ]. Relevant paragraph in Padma Sundara Rao case is Paragraph No.9 which reads as follows: ' 9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington v. British Railways Board [(1972) 2 WLR 537 : 1972 AC 877 (HL) [Sub nom British Railways Board v. Herrington, (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)]] . Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases.' 11. Therefore, we are of the considered view that aforementioned two case laws, i.e., Soshit Karamchari and Fertilizer Corporation are clearly completely different as regards factual matrix operating in different realm do not come to the aid of the implead petitioner in the case on hand. Be that as it may, Mr.P.Vijendran, learned counsel for implead petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nting bail to the Respondent-Accused?; 14.3. (C) If so, whether the High Court's order dated 10.02.2022 is palpably illegal and warrants interference by this Court? A. Victim's right to be heard: 15. Until recently, criminal law had been viewed on a dimensional plane wherein the Courts were required to adjudicate between the accused and the State. The 'victim' - the de facto sufferer of a crime had no participation in the adjudicatory process and was made to sit outside the Court as a mute spectator. However, with the recognition that the ethos of criminal justice dispensation to prevent and punish 'crime' had surreptitiously turned its back on the 'victim', the jurisprudence with respect to the rights of victims to be heard and to participate in criminal proceedings began to positively evolve.' This Court has no hesitation in saying that victimology has no application to implead petitioner. 12. In Srinath Prasad case, pressed into service by learned Prosecutor (alluded to supra) a petition was filed for suspension of sentence pending appeal, an earlier petition filed by the petitioner for a similar relief was dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the victim's counsel. In this case law cited by learned senior counsel also fact setting is different. Be that as it may, general principle is paramount position of Public Prosecutor vide Cr.PC scheme should be preserved. 14. We now turn to the second limb of argument of second respondent (petitioner in main Crl.OP). A careful perusal of support affidavit qua implead petition makes it clear that burden of the song qua implead petitioner is grievance about the closure of complaint qua predicate offence. Therefore, we are of the view that implead prayer does not appeal to us owing to facts and circumstances of the case. We have already noticed, scanned and reproduced the counter affidavit filed by ED. ED does not oppose implead prayer. This means that the implead petition namely, Crl.M.P.No.9244 of 2023 is dismissed. 15. We now move on to the main matters. This court notices from the submissions that the argument of ED in the case on hand is distinguishable qua Anil Jain case primarily on the ground that the settlement money has not changed hands. As regards settlement money, it hardly matters, as closure of predicate offence is qua a settlement in what is purely a pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further for the learned Prosecutor as the settlement has been arrived at on 18.01.2023 itself even according to the document seized by ED as rightly pointed out by learned Senior counsel. 18. As regards an interim order made by another Hon'ble coordinate Division Bench which was carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court and order made by Hon'ble Supreme Court as there was closure in the interregnum , the same has been captured in the previous proceedings which has been set out supra which is now being read as an integral part and parcel of this final order. In addition to this, it was also pointed out that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Akbar Travels case [Directorate of Enforcement Vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Crl.WP(ST) No.3122 of 2020] in and by order dated 21.12.2020 addressed itself to the question as to the locus of ED qua a closure report filed by State i.e., State of Maharashtra in Akbar Travels case and concluded that ED is an independent investigating agency empowered to investigate offences under PMLA and cannot be termed as victim aggrieved / injured or interested person having regard to judicial pronouncements. This order of Bombay High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndamus prayer seeking a direction to the respondent to close / drop the proceedings against the petitioner in connection with ECIR in F.No.ECIR/CEZO- 1/19/2021. 2. Mr.C.Manishankar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of counsel on record for writ petitioner submits that pursuant to the aforementioned ECIR [to be noted ECIR stands for 'Enforcement Case Information Report'], a summon dated 27.06.2022 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the respondent on 08.07.2022 at 10.00 a.m. along with certain documents set out in the schedule to summons was issued. Learned Senior counsel submits that ECIR in summon is predicated on FIR No.278 of 2020 dated 17.09.2020 on the file of CCB-I (Chennai-CCB) for alleged offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of 'Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' ['IPC' for the sake of brevity]. To be noted, summon does not refer to this FIR but this is averment of the petitioner that ECIR in summon is predicated on aforementioned FIR. Learned Senior counsel submits that the aforementioned FIR has since ended in a closure on 01.07.2021 vide proceedings before jurisdictional Metropolitan Magistrate Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to this Court. 6. List four weeks hence. List on 24.07.2023.' 3. The aforementioned 26.06.2023 proceedings/orders shall now be read as an integral part and parcel of this order. The aforementioned 26.06.2023 proceedings captures essentials that are imperative for appreciating this final order and therefore we are not setting out the same again and burdening this final order with further facts. To be noted, the short forms, abbreviations and short references used in the 26.06.2023 proceedings shall continue to be used in the instant final order also for the sake of convenience and clarity. To be noted, in the aforementioned 26.06.2023 proceedings an inadvertent typographical / secretarial error has crept in, the same is 'ECIR in summon is predicated'. This expression should read as 'ECIR and summon are predicated'. This shall now be read as an Errata / Corrigendum and aforementioned 26.06.2023 which is now an integral part and parcel of this final order shall be read accordingly. 4. Today, Mr.Mani Shankar, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr.R.Palaniandavan, learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner and Mr.N.Ramesh, learned Special Publi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 44 of PMLA. However, as regards paragraph XI of counter affidavit, the same is the obtaining fact scenario and stated position of respondent as regards closure of predicate offence. 10. In the light of the narrative thus far, it is clear that in the case on hand, there is closure of predicate offence and there is no disputation or contestation that this closure of predicate offence has attained finality and has been given legal quietus. 11. Reverting to two case laws relied on by the learned senior counsel, facts and questions are similar i.e., whether PMLA proceedings will survive on the teeth of closure of predicate offence when such closure has attained finality/given legal quietus. In Jagathrakshakan's case, relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 3 and 4 and the same read as follows: '3. While so, when the matter was taken up for hearing, both sides represented that this court has allowed Crl.O.P.Nos.12985 and 12986 of 2020 on 23.09.2022 quashing the two First Information Reports in CBCID Crime Nos.2 and 3 of 2016. 4. In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others Vs. Union of India and Others (2022 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above analysis and discussion this Court concludes as under: a) The relief sought regarding constitutionality or vires of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is infructuous having been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929. b) The ECIR no. ECIR/07/HIU/2021 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, under FIR No. 129/2021 dated 13 April, 2021 registered by P.S. Wada, Dist. Palghar, Maharashtra stands quashed. c) All proceedings arising from the ECIR No. ECIR/07/HIU/2021 are set aside and there would be no further coercive action or search and seizure or summons arising from the said ECIR. d) The Look out Circulars issued by respondents pursuant to the ECIR No.ECIR/07/HIU/2021 are also set aside.' 13. This Bench also notices that Parvathi Kollur's case (Parvathi Kollur and Another Vs. State by Directorate of Enforcement) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1975 in a similar fact situation has restated paragraph 187 (d) of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary which reads as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the same has been disposed of by Hon'ble Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in and by an order dated 06.07.2023 which reads as follows: 'Delay condoned. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that since there is a closure report in the predicate offence, therefore, no further proceedings under the PMLA Act could be continued as per the observations of the High Court in the impugned order(s). He, however, submitted that in the event any further action is taken in respect of the predicate offence, then liberty may be reserved to the petitioner herein to take further steps under the said Act, including reviving these proceedings. The submission of learned ASG is placed on record. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of in light of the aforesaid submission and liberty is accordingly reserved to the petitioner. Pending applications shall stand disposed of.' 16. Applying Padma Sundara Rao principle, the ratio in Jagathrakshakan's case, Harish Fabiani's case and Emta Coal's case , all of which in turn turn on Vijay Madanlal's case of Hon'ble Supreme Court would apply in all force to the case on hand. To ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of predicate offence then the rights/liberties of Enforcement Directorate are preserved to take further steps under PMLA including reviving of the instant proceedings which has been put in by respectfully following the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Emta Coal's case . There shall be no order as to costs. 19. A careful perusal of Anil Jain case will make it clear that Vijay Madanlal principle [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others vs. Union of India and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929] , Parvathi Kollur case [Parvathi Kollur and another vs. State of Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1975] and more particularly Emta coal case [Emta Coal Limited and others vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement] reported in 2023/DHC/000277 {Neutral Citation of Delhi High Court} rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court have all been adverted to. Paragraph No.15 of our Anil Jain case is of significance. To be noted, in paragraph No.15, we had recorded that the Court made a research and found that Emta Coal case has been carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court vide a special leave petition (details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts to the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 could not have been enacted by the Parliament by way of a Finance Act has not been examined in this judgment. The same is left open for being examined along with or after the decision of the Larger Bench (seven Judges) of this Court in the case of Rojer Mathew. (ii) The expression proceedings occurring in Clause (na) of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act is contextual and is required to be given expansive meaning to include inquiry procedure followed by the Authorities of ED, the Adjudicating Authority, and the Special Court. (iii) The expression investigation in Clause (na) of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act does not limit itself to the matter of investigation concerning the offence under the Act and is interchangeable with the function of inquiry to be undertaken by the Authorities under the Act. (iv) The Explanation inserted to Clause (u) of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act does not travel beyond the main provision predicating tracking and reaching upto the property derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. (v)(a) Section 3 of the 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ards as delineated by us hereinabove are effective measures to protect the interests of person concerned. (vii) The challenge to the validity of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the 2002 Act is also rejected subject to Section 8 being invoked and operated in accordance with the meaning assigned to it hereinabove. (viii) The challenge to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the 2002 Act stands rejected. There are stringent safeguards provided in Section 17 and Rules framed thereunder. Moreover, the pre-condition in the proviso to Rule 3(2) of the 2005 Rules cannot be read into Section 17 after its amendment. The Central Government may take necessary corrective steps to obviate confusion caused in that regard. (ix) The challenge to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the 2002 Act also stands rejected. There are similar safeguards provided in Section 18. We hold that the amended provision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. (x) The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 19 of the 2002 Act is also rejected. There are stringent safeguards provided in Section 19. The provision does not suff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the proceeds of crime and is not investigation in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution; and the Authorities under the 2002 Act (referred to in Section 48), are not police officers as such. (b) The statements recorded by the Authorities under the 2002 Act are not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (xvi) Section 63 of the 2002 Act providing for punishment regarding false information or failure to give information does not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness. (xvii) The inclusion or exclusion of any particular offence in the Schedule to the 2002 Act is a matter of legislative policy; and the nature or class of any predicate offence has no bearing on the validity of the Schedule or any prescription thereunder. (xviii)(a) In view of special mechanism envisaged by the 2002 Act, ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR under the 1973 Code. ECIR is an internal document of the ED and the fact that FIR in respect of scheduled offence has not been recorded does not come in the way of the Authorities referred to in Section 48 to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating civil action of provisional attachmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Jain case. 22. In Anil Jain case, it was a writ petition where the prayer was to direct ED to close / drop all proceedings but in the case on hand, it is criminal original petitions under Section 482 of Cr.PC seeking quash the summons qua Summons No.PMLA/SUMMON/CEZO/2023/1152 in ECIR/CEZO-I/63/2022, No.PMLA/SUMMON/CEZO/2023/1181 in ECIR/CEZO-I/63/2022, No.PMLA/SUMMON/CEZO/2023/1180 in ECIR/CEZO-I/63/2022, No.PMLA/SUMMON/CEZO/2023/1184 in ECIR/CEZO-I/63/2022, No.PMLA/SUMMON/CEZO/2023/1182 in ECIR/CEZO-I/63/2022 and No.PMLA/SUMMON/CEZO/2023/1183 in ECIR/CEZO-I/63/2022. Law is well settled that in a Section 482 of Cr.PC quash legal drill, what the Section 482 Court would look into is, uncontraverted averments in the complaint without adding or subtracting to the same. In the case on hand, this legal drill becomes extremely simple as quash prayer turns on the legal point that on closure of predicate offence, ECIR cannot proceed. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in saying that we are left with the inevitable conclusion that prayers need to be answered in the affirmative i.e., acceded to. 23. This Court deems it appropriate to add that if SIAC ultimately ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
