The PMLA's constitutional validity was upheld, and the court clarified the distinct nature of offences under ULA(P) Act and the PMLA, rejecting the claim of double jeopardy.

JUDGMENT :

1) By this common judgment, afore-titled three writ petitions filed by the petitioners, are proposed to be disposed of.

2) By virtue of writ petition bearing OWP No.757/2018, the petitioners have challenged the provisions contained in Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the PMLA”). Challenge has also been thrown to proceedings initiated against the petitioners pursuant to ECIR/01/SRZO/2011 dated 29.04.2011, which are stated to be pending before the Designated Court.

3) In OWP No.820/2017, the petitioners have challenged the proceedings initiated against them pursuant to ECIR/01/SRZO/2011 dated 29.02.2011, as also the aforesaid ECIR.

4) Vide writ petition (OWP) No.1194/2011, the petitioners have challenged the order of summoning issued by respondent No.4-Director of Enforcement, against them with a further direction for restraining the respondents from interfering in the cases already investigated and prosecuted by the J&K Police.

5) It appears that the petitioners are facing trial before the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, in a case arising out of FIR No.14/2009 for offences under Section 11, 17, 20 ULA(P) Act and Section 121-A of RPC registered with P/S Karan Nagar, Srinagar. According to the petitioners, they were also detained under Public Safety Act in terms of orders No. DMS/PSA/68/2010 and DMS/PSA/67/2010 both dated 3rd February, 2010. It has been submitted that the allegations made in the challan pending against the petitioners are similar in nature to the allegations levelled against them in the grounds of detention. It has been further submitted that the orders of preventive detention passed against the petitioners have been quashed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 23.03.2010 passed in writ petition No.161/2010.

6) It seems that the respondent Enforcement Directorate has registered as case bearing No.ECIR/01/SRZO/2011 dated 29.04.2011 against the petitioners in which the impugned summons have been issued against them. According to the petitioners, they have been subjected to investigation and enquiry under the provisions of the PMLA on the basis of same allegations which are subject matter of the challan pending against them.

7) In all the three petitions, the petitioners have urged common grounds of challenge against the impugned proceedings initiated by respondent No.4-Enforcement Director against them under the provisions of the PMLA. It has been contended that the provisions of the PMLA are un-constitutional and ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 50 and 323 of the Constitution. It has been further contended that the respondents have subjected the petitioners to prosecution under the provisions of the PMLA on the same allegations and facts which are subject matter of criminal challan pending against them and that this amounts to double jeopardy. On this basis, it is being contended that the action of the respondents is unconstitutional. It has also been contended that the occurrence which is subject matter of the impugned proceedings dates back to a period when offences under ULA(P) Act had not been included in the Schedule to the PMLA, as such, the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the PMLA are without jurisdiction.

8) The respondents have contested the writ petitions by filing reply thereto. In the reply, it has been submitted that the petitioners have been booked in FIR No.14/2009 for offences under Section 11, 17, 20 of ULA(P) Act read with Section 121-A RPC registered with P/S Karan Nagar, Srinagar, and the case is pending trial before the Court 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar. It has been submitted that the petitioners are workers of banned outfit Hizb-ul-Mujahidin who have received money through illegal means for passing on the same to top ranking militants of Hizb-ul-Mujahidin so as to upgrade terrorist activities in the valley. It has been submitted that the petitioners were apprehended n