IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Revati Mohite Dere, Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.
Naresh Goyal - Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 4037 of 2022
Decided On : 23-02-2023
MONEY LAUNDERING - PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT - Sections 3, 4 of PMLA, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the necessity of a scheduled offence as a predicate for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to initiate proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It highlighted that without an existing scheduled offence, the ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) cannot be maintained. The court referenced several judgments, including Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, establishing that the closure of the FIR, which was the basis for the ECIR, rendered the ED's investigation invalid. The court concluded that the ECIR must be quashed due to the absence of a predicate offence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash an ECIR registered by the ED, arguing that there was no scheduled offence, which is a prerequisite for such proceedings. The FIR against them had been closed by the police, indicating that the matter was civil in nature and had been resolved in insolvency proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the closure of the FIR meant there was no predicate offence to support the ECIR. It noted that the ED had no locus to intervene in the closure report and that the legal framework required a scheduled offence for the ECIR to be valid.
Issues: Whether the ECIR registered by the ED can stand in the absence of a scheduled offence, and whether the closure of the FIR affects the validity of the ECIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the existence of a scheduled offence is essential for the ED to initiate proceedings under the PMLA. The closure of the FIR, which was the basis for the ECIR, meant that the ED could not continue its investigation.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed, and the ECIR registered by the ED was quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties in both the petitions.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, in both the aforesaid petitions, with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Mr. Shirsat waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 - ED and the learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.2 -State in both the petitions.
3. By these petitions, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner in both the petitions seek identical substantive relief, which reads thus;
<WXY>"18. .... .... .... .... (a) issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, calling the records of the Respondent No.1 pertaining to the ECIR/MBZO-II/01/2020 dtd. 20/2/2020 ("Impugned ECIR") (Exhibit A) and quash and / or set aside the ECIR/MBZO-II/01/2020 dtd. 20/2/2020 ("Impugned ECIR") (Exhibit A), the investigation carried thereunder and all proceedings and actions emanating therefrom against the Petitioner, as being illegal and contrary to law."</WXY>
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions submit that the ECIR registered by the respondent No.1 - The Directorate of Enforcement ("ED") does not survive, inasmuch as, there is no scheduled offence, which is a condition precedent for initiating ED proceeding. In support of their submission, learned senior counsel relied on the following judgments: -
(i) Harish Fabiani and Others v/s Enforcement Directorate and Others,2022 SCC OnLine Del 3121 and (ii) Criminal Appeal No.1269 of 2017 (Directorate of Enforcement v/s M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. and other connected appeals) decided on 2/12/2022.
5. Mr. Shirsat, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - ED does not dispute the fact that there is no scheduled offence pending against either of the petitioners. He also does not dispute the fact that registration of a scheduled offence is a condition precedent for initiating ED proceeding. He, however submits that it is well possible, that there may be other cases against the petitioner in both the petitions, which may be registered against the petitioners. He submits that in the investigation carried out by the ED, the ED has unearthed certain irregularities in the forensic audit accounting conducted by them and as such it is well possible to keep the ECIR registered by the respondent No.1 - ED, alive.
6. Perused the papers. A few facts as are necessary to decide the aforesaid petitions are set out hereinunder :- Admittedly, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4037 of 2022 is the husband of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4038 of 2022. It appears that Akbar Travels India Private Limited ('Akbar Travels') had filed a private complaint in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier, Mumbai, against Jet Airways (India) Limited ('Jet Airways') and its erstwhile non-executive directors i.e. the petitioner in both the petitions, alleging offences punishable under Ss. 120B r/w 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 471-A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). Vide order dtd. 15/2/2020, the trial Court passed an order under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C') and directed the Senior Police Inspector of the MRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai, to register an FIR as against the petitioner in both the petitions. Pursuant thereto, on 18 th February 2020, an FIR bearing C.R. No.66 of 2020 was registered by the said police station against Jet Airways and the petitioner in both the petitions, alleging offences punishable under Ss. 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120B of the IPC. It appears that on 20/2/2020, based on the aforesaid FIR, the respondent No.1 - ED registered ECIR/MBZO-II/01/2020 under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), (as the aforesaid offences specified in t
AI
The court established that the offense of money laundering under PMLA cannot exist independently of a scheduled offense.
The presence of a scheduled offence legitimizes the existence of an ECIR and allows the department to continue the investigation. However, the settlement or quashing of scheduled offences in FIRs pro....
The court affirmed that actions taken under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are invalid without a subsisting predicate offense, establishing that quashing of an FIR necessitates the quashing o....
Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not sustainable without a registered scheduled offence, as established by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings cannot survive if the predicate offences linked to them are closed by the court, indicating the non-existence of 'proceeds of crime'.
FIR and ECIR become two different documents and both tend to take shape on its own, independent of each other.
Section 66(1) of the PMLA prescribes the obligations of Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provide or facilitate the provision of pertinent information to designated government entities when such inform....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.