Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Rana Ayyub – Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement through its Assistant Director – Respondent
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 12 of 2023
Decided On : 07-02-2023
(A) Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 read with Section 44 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 190 – Money laundering – Cognizance of offence and summoning order – Territorial jurisdiction of Special Court – Offence punishable under Section 4 of PMLA and any scheduled offence connected to the same shall be triable by Special Court constituted for area in which offence has been Committed – It is Special Court constituted under Section 43(1) which will be empowered to try even scheduled offence connected to the same – Trial of scheduled offence, insofar as question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, should follow trial of offence of money-laundering and not vice versa – Provisions of Cr.P.C. are applicable to all proceedings under the Act including proceedings before Special Court, except to the extent they are specifically excluded – Section 71 of PMLA providing an overriding effect, has to be construed in tune with Section 46(1) and Section 65 – Even if scheduled offence is taken cognizance of by any other Court, that Court shall commit the same to Special Court which has taken cognizance of offence of money-laundering. (Paras 23, 25, 29 and 36)
(B) Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 read with Section 44 – Constitution of India – Article 32 – Money laundering – Territorial jurisdiction of Special Court – Jurisdiction of a Civil Court is limited by territorial as well as pecuniary limits, but jurisdiction of a Criminal Court is determined by offence and/or offender – Area in which place of acquisition of proceeds of crime is located or place of keeping it in possession is located or place in which it is concealed is located or place in which it is used is located, will be area in which offence has been committed – Issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition, especially when there is serious factual dispute about place/places of commission of offence – This question should be raised by petitioner before Special Court, since an answer to same would depend upon evidence as to places where any one or more of processes or activities mentioned in Section 3 were carried out – Writ Petition dismissed, giving liberty to petitioner to raise issue of territorial jurisdiction before Trial Court. (Paras 31, 32, 39, 40 and 46)
Facts of the case:
Challenging a summoning order issued by the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI Court No.1, Ghaziabad, on a complaint lodged by the respondent under Section 45 read with Section 44 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, petitioner has come up with above writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Findings of Court:
Question of territorial jurisdiction in this case requires an enquiry into a question of fact as to the place where alleged proceeds of crime were (i) concealed; or (ii) possessed; or (iii) acquired; or (iv) used. This question of fact will actually depend upon the evidence that unfolds before the Trial Court.
Result : Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. Challenging a summoning order issued by the Court of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI Court No. 1, Ghaziabad, on a complaint lodged by the respondent under Section 45 read with Section 44 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 20021 [for short “PMLA” or the “Act” as the case may be] the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
2. We have heard Ms. Vrinda Grover, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India for the respondent.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pandemic, she initiated crowd-funding campaign through an online crowd-funding platform named “Ketto” and ran three campaigns from April 2020 to September 2021. In connection with the same, the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate initiated an enquiry against the petitioner under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 19992 [For short “FEMA”] through an Office Order dated 3.8.2021.
4. It appears that thereafter a complaint was lodged on 7.9.2021 by one Vikas Sankritayan, claiming to be the founder of Hindu IT Cell, in FIR No. 2049/2021 with Indirapuram Police Station, Ghaziabad for alleged offences under Sections 403, 406, 418 and 420 IPC read with Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 4 of the Black Money Act.
5. In the meantime, the petitioner received an order under Section 37 of the FEMA read with Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate seeking certain documents, in addition to the documents submitted by the petitioner in response to the previous Office Order dated 3.8.2021 issued by the very same Mumbai Zonal Office.
6. After the petitioner submitted a detailed response to the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate, the Delhi Zone-II Office of the Directorate of Enforcement registered a complaint in ECIR No. DLZO-II/58/2021 on 11.11.2021, in the Court of the Special Judge at Ghaziabad. It was stated in the said complaint that the FIR registered on 7.9.2021 on the file of the Indirapuram Police Station, Ghaziabad formed the basis for the complaint of the Enforcement Directorate.
7. After the registration of the aforesaid complaint by the Enforcement Directorate, the petitioner was summoned to the Delhi Zone-II Office and her statement under Section 50 of the PMLA was recorded on 15.12.2021.
8. Thereafter, a provisional order of attachment of the bank account of the petitioner in HDFC Bank, Koperkhairane Branch, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, was passed by the Directorate of Enforcement on 4.2.2022. Pursuant to the order of provisional attachment, the Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause notice dated 8.3.2022.
9. While things stood thus, a Look out Circular was issued against the petitioner, but the same was set aside by the High Court of Delhi in a writ petition filed by the petitioner. In a second writ petition filed by the petitioner, the High Court of Delhi restrained the Directorate of Enforcement from taking further steps under Section 8 of the PMLA on the short ground that the validity period of 180 days, of the order of provisional attachment, came to an end statutorily on 4.8.2022.
10. Thereafter, the Court of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI Court No. 1, Ghaziabad, passed an order on 29.11.2022 taking cognizance of the complaint lodged by the respondent and summoning the petitioner for appearance on 13.12.2022. Upon coming to know of the said Summoning Order, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. It is claimed by the petitioner in paragraph 5(v) of the writ petition that “No summons have yet been received.....” by her and that she had annexed a screenshot of the e-court website reflecting the case details. However, a print out of the copy of the Summoning Order is filed along with the writ petition.
11. At the outset, it is made clear by Ms. Vrinda Grov
Section 3 reads as offence of money-laundering.
The trial for scheduled offences and money laundering offences must occur in a Special Court as outlined in Section 44(1) of PMLA, reflecting legislative intent for concurrent trials.
Lack of jurisdiction does not warrant transferring a case.
Under the governing legislation, a tribunal handling a predicate offence is statutorily mandated to transfer the matter to the designated special tribunal upon application by the investigating author....
Jurisdiction for money laundering cases follows the location of predicate offences; the arrest and remand were valid under the PMLA.
The court affirmed that under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, the Special Court is designated to try both scheduled offences and money laundering offences, emphasizing legislative intent for discretion....
Point of Law : Application was not maintainable before learned Magistrate, since Court did not have the power to direct recording of statements for it to become a record under the PMLA, the order wh....
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings are independent of the predicate offence and must proceed without delay, reflecting the urgency in addressing economic crimes.
The trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is independent of any pending trial for the predicate offence, as affirmed by the court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
