The seriousness of economic offences, the burden of proof under Section 24 of the PML Act, and the discretion of the trial court in issuing non-bailable warrants under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT

1. S.B. Crl. Misc. Stay Application No. 3791/2021 S.B. Crl. Misc. Stay Application No. 3792/2021 Both the Criminal Misc. Stay Applications in Revision Petition Nos. 731/2021 and 732/2021, filed against impugned order dated 12.07.2021, are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Vide impugned order dated 12.07.2021 learned Sessions Judge, PMLA 2002/ Special Judge CBI Cases No.3, Jaipur Metro-I, in Complaint Case No.03/2021, has taken cognizance against the accused-persons, petitioners herein, for offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as 'the PML Act') and the petitioners have been summoned by way of arrest warrants.

3. It has been submitted that a strong prima facie case is made out in favour of the petitioners and the criminal revision petitions may be treated as part and parcel of the stay applications. It has further been submitted that if interim order is not granted, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss, therefore, the stay applications have been filed with following prayer :-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to stay order dated 12.07.2021 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Sessions Judge, PMLA 2002/Special Judge CBI Cases No.3, Jaipur Metro-I in Criminal Complaint no. 3/2021 as also the arrest warrant issued against the petitioners.

Any other interim order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners- applicants."

4. According to the brief facts of the revision petitions, case of the petitioners is that a criminal complaint registered under Section 43, for contravention of Section 24 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, only could attract any action under the PML Act only for the period for which such offence is alleged to be committed and value of proceeds, if any, generated during that impugned period only.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the order by which cognizance has been taken, is bad in law as no offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act is disclosed and, therefore, the cognizance order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. It has further been submitted that the learned court below has not considered the fact that the complainant has failed to bring on record any material against the petitioners even prima facie, to support the complaint or connect the petitioners with any offence under the provisions of the PML Act. The complaint filed by the Pollution Control Board under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not show commission of any scheduled offence by the petitioners. The petitioners are not involved in any of the processes of money laundering including placement, layering and integration of any proceeds of crime. The complaint has been filed on the basis of surmises. Contravention of any of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1986") would make a person liable for penalty under Section 15, but invocation of Section 15 on standalone basis is not a scheduled offence. It is only when there is contravention of Section 7 or 8 of the Act of 1986, the offence would fall under paragraph 25 of part A of Schedule to the PML Act. No such contravention of the provision of Section 7 or Section 8 even finds mention in the criminal complaint No.157/2010. The statutory body holding authority under the Act of 1986, had sought punishment under Section 15 and 19 of the Act of 1986 only, and that too for a limited period. Thus, the alleged complaint has not been filed for contravention of any of the scheduled offences. Even, it is admitted fact that the petitioners have no connection with the company namely, M/s Agribiotech Industries Ltd after June 2008. Commission of a scheduled offence is the fundamental condition for giving rise to proceeds of crime and consequently, the appli