The offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, which has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

CRL.M.A. 3708/2020 in CRL.M.C. 906/2020 CRL.M.A. 5241/2019 in W.P.(CRL) 723/2019

1. The present applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) have been filed on behalf of the petitioner, seeking issuance of necessary directions including ad- interim ex-parte order restraining the respondent from contemplating any proceedings including criminal proceedings against the petitioner in case arising out of Enforcement Case Information Report (‘ECIR’) No. ECIR/320/DZ-1/2009, and CT No. 18/2018 filed by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 44 and 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), till the above-captioned petitions are adjudicated by this Court.

2. Factual background of the case is that the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) had registered an FIR No. RC-AC2-2007- A0003 on 08.10.2007, for offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(‘PC Act’) and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). It was alleged that Major General Anand Kumar Kapur, the petitioner herein, while serving in various capacities in the Indian Army from 14.11.1971 to 31.05.2006, had amassed substantial assets through corrupt and illegal means, either in his name or in the names of his family members, which were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Smt. Mridula Kapur was accused of abetting her husband in acquiring these assets. Based on this FIR, an ECIR No. ECIR/320/DZ-1/2009 was also recorded on 22.12.2009.

3. After completing the investigation, the CBI had filed a charge sheet on 26.10.2009 in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. The petitioner herein was charged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, and his wife was charged under Section 109 of IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. After conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court had convicted the petitioner on 27.09.2016, finding that he could not satisfactorily account for pecuniary resources and property worth Rs. 2,22,04,290/-, which were disproportionate to his income. However, his wife was acquitted, given the benefit of the doubt.

Thereafter, on 29.09.2016, the learned Trial Court had ordered the confiscation of properties worth Rs. 2,12,36,205/-.

4. Further investigations in the present case revealed that the petitioner herein had amassed disproportionate assets amounting to Rs. 3,37,02,592/-, which were then provisionally attached by the Directorate of Enforcement on 04.11.2016. This attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on 17.03.2017 after hearing both parties. The petitioner had appealed against this order, which is pending before the Appellate Tribunal, PMLA. The Appellate Tribunal had ordered the release of properties belonging to Smt. Mridula Kapur on 13.04.2018. The Directorate of Enforcement has appealed this order.

5. On 07.07.2018, the Directorate of Enforcement had filed a prosecution complaint under Section 44 read with Section 45(1) of PMLA alleging that the petitioner had committed offences under Section 3 and 4 of PMLA. The cognizance of the complaint was taken on 25.01.2019 by the learned Special Court. On 21.01.2020, the learned Special Court had ordered framing of charges against the petitioner under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA, whereas his wife was discharged. The charges were framed thereafter by the learned Special Court, against the petitioner, vide order dated 01.02.2020.

6. The case set out by the petitioner is that on 06.03.2019, he had filed the above-captioned criminal writ petition against the order of cognizance passed by the learned Special Judge. Thereafter, when the order on charge was passed on 21.01.2020, it is stated that the learned Special Court had held that the amendment in the PMLA dated 01.08.2019 is applicable to the present case, and on 01.02.2020, charges were framed by the learned Special Judge agai