ORDER :

N. K. Chandravanshi, J.

Heard Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, counsel for the petitioner and Dr. N. K. Shukla, Senior counsel with Mr. Saurabh Dangi and Ms. Priya Mishra, counsel for the respondent.

1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i. To set aside/quash the order dated 25.09.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Court of 4th ASJ, Raipur, District Courts, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in case titled as E.D. vs Babulal Agrawal in ECIR No.01/NGR/2011;

ii. To direct Ld. Court of 4th ASJ (Special Judge, PMLA), Raipur District Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh to immediately take up the matter ‘E.D. Vs Babulal Agrawal and others in ECIR No.01/NGR/2011 regarding cognizance of prosecution complaint filed by ED and expedite the same as per law; and

iii. Pass any other or further order (s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. Facts of the case in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the respondent in the capacity of an IAS Officer made unlawful gain and amassed huge property and got opened 446 bank accounts in the name of the villagers, thereby huge amount was deposited in the accounts and the same was used for investment in the shares of M/s Prime Ispat Limited, upon which a case was registered by the petitioner against the respondent under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2002’ ) consequent to the FIR registered by the Chhattisgarh State Anti Corruption Bureau in this regard after the search conducted by the Income Tax Department, thereafter investigation was initiated by the petitioner under the aforesaid Act, but the respondent was not cooperating with the investigation, upon which various summons were issued to him and ultimately he was arrested by the petitioner thereafter, he was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2021 passed in MCRC No.78/2021. After investigation, the petitioner filed prosecution complaint (PC) on 04.01.2021 in the Court of 4th ASJ (Special Judge) PMLA, wherein learned Special Judge also heard argument of learned counsel for the petitioner prior to registration of case but learned Special Judge vide impugned order has provided opportunity of hearing to the respondent (accused), which is not in accordance with the Act of 2002, hence the same has been challenged by the petitioner by way of the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Prevention of the Money Laundering Act of 2002 is a special statute enacted by the legislature in order to curb the menace of money laundering in India. It is further contended that after due investigation, the petitioner has filed complaint against the respondent under Section 3/4 of the Act of 2002. The aforesaid Act do not contemplate any provision with regard to providing opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance, despite that the learned court below vide impugned order has provided opportunity of hearing to the respondent. It is further contended that as per the provisions of the Act, 2002, Special Courts have been deemed to be a Court of Session and even in the provisions of Cr.P.C., Chapter XV and XVI, no provisions have been provided to hear the accused before the registration of the case. Hence, order impugned is liable to be quashed and relief may be granted to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent/accused while referring its reply submits that although there is no specific provision enumerated in the Act of 2002, but since during inquiry, respondent was arrested by the petitioner and he was released by this Court by allowing the bail application filed by the respondent, thus even before the filing of complaint in instant case, the respondent is attending every proceeding before the learned Special Judge. Therefore, it is core right of the respondent to be heard prior to taking cognizance of the offence, as the respondent cannot bec