Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S.RAMESH and SUNDER MOHAN, JJ.
K.Govindaraj – Appellant
versus
Union of India, Represented by Secretary – Respondent
W.P.Nos.5402, 1689, 1711, 1765, 2935, 2995, 3047, 3048, 3381, 3389, 3411, 3481, 3607, 3648, 3878, 4412, 4416, 4421, 4463, 4578, 4583, 4629, 4657, 4661, 5439, 5444, 5449, 5450, 5645, 5652, 8435, 8563, 8568, 8689, 8697, 8871, 9312, 9327, 9333, 9379, 9383, 9391, 9395, 1655 and 4891 of 2024 and 35515, 35656, 35658 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.10330, 10347, 10349, 10389, 10394, 10409, 1734, 1758, 1819, 5944, 6005, 6011, 6016, 6018, 6246, 9390, 9509, 9513, 9698, 9710, 9877, 10406, 1688, 9878, 10333, 10348, 10351, 10392, 10395, 10407, 10410, 1690, 1735, 1759, 1821, 3182, 3183, 3265, 3325, 3326, 3642, 3648, 3667, 3668, 3739, 3740, 3893, 3935, 4196, 4749, 4755, 4762, 4823, 4999, 5007, 5071, 5008, 5095, 5353, 5945, 6006, 6013, 6019, 6020, 6244, 6240, 6250, 9391, 9514, 9700, 9712 and 9511 of 2024 and 35478, 35626, 35629, 35479, 35628, 35630 of 2023
Decided on : 16-07-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of petitioners’ challenges (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding jurisdiction & legal standards (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. procedural issues in investigation and attachment (Para 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 4. court's analysis of evidence and legal interpretation (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. clarification on legal standards for attachment and prosecution (Para 12 , 16 , 19) |
| 6. assessing jurisdictional authority to initiate actions under the pmla. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. clarifying the necessity for jurisdictional prerequisites for effective action under the pmla. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 8. conclusions on lack of jurisdiction and quashing of actions (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. final order and conclusion of the judgment (Para 30) |
ORDER :
1. The above Writ Petitions challenge the various actions initiated by the respondents herein against the petitioners.
(i) Twenty-four out of the captioned Writ Petitions challenge the ECIR bearing reference No. ECIR/CEZO-II/22/2023 dated 11.09.2023.
(ii) Thirteen Writ Petitions challenge the Provisional Attachment Order in No.1/2024 dated 31.01.2024, passed in respect of the properties of the petitioners.
(iii) Eleven Writ Petitions challenge the proceedings in the Original Applications filed by the respondents seeking confirmation of the Attachment Order.
2. Since the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions is the same, they were heard together and a common order is passed. The following facts are undisputed:
(a). An ECIR/CEZO-II/22/2023 was recorded on 11.09.2023 on the basis of the following four First Information Reports:
(i) FIR No. 68/2023, dated 25.04.2023, registered by Murappanadu Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
(ii) FIR No.02/2022, dated 05.02.2022 registered by V & AC, Theni.
(iii) FIR No.08/2018, dated 23.07.2018 registered by V & AC, Thanjavur.
(iv) FIR No.03/2020, dated 20.10.2020 registered by V & AC, Dindigul.
(b) Pursuant to the recording of the ECIR, searches were conducted in various places.
(c) Summons were also sent to various parties, in connection with the inquiry/investigation, with reference to the above ECIR.
(d) The Provisional Attachment Orders were passed in relation to the properties of some of the petitioners, on the ground that they were in possession of proceeds of crime and also recording the fact that they evaded the summons or did not respond to the summons.
(e) In the meanwhile, the summons were issued to all the Collectors in the State of Tamil Nadu in connection with the inquiry in the above referred ECIR. The State of Tamil Nadu and the Collectors filed Writ Petitions challenging the summons issued to them in W.P.Nos.33459 to 33468 of 2023. This Court, passed an order on 28.11.2023 granting interim stay of the operation of the summons impugned in those Writ Petitions.
(f) Some of the petitioners in the captioned Writ Petitions filed the Writ Petitions challenging the ECIR insofar as they were concerned in W.P.Nos.35515 of 2023, 35656 of 2023 and 35658 of 2023. This Court passed an order of interim stay of the operation of summons issued to the petitioners in the ECIR proceedings. In certain other captioned Writ Petitions, this Court granted stay of the ECIR proceedings against the petitioners and also stay of the Provisional Attachment Order in W.M.P.Nos. 3182, 3183, 3265, 3326 and 3325 of 2024 in W.P.No.2935, 2995, 3048 and 3407 of 2024 etc.
(g) In the meanwhile, the respondents filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1959 – 1963/2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the interim orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Collectors. The Hon'ble Supreme in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).1959 – 1963/2024 was pleased to pass an order of stay on the execution of the orders passed by this Court in those Writ Petitions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also observed that since the respondents are conducting the investigation in the ECIR, the Collectors are bound to respond to the summons. Consequently, the District Collector
The Enforcement Directorate lacks jurisdiction under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act without a registered FIR indicating proceeds of crime directly related to the accused.
Scheduled offence – Attachment of property would result in serious consequences for concerned persons and cannot be based on assumptions made by respondents – Unless information with regard to any ca....
Money Laundering – Power to arrest under Section 19 (1) of PMLA is not for the purpose of investigation – Arrest can and should wait and power in terms of Section 19(1) of PMLA can be exercised only ....
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.
Properties acquired before the commission of an alleged offence cannot be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and due process must be followed in such proceedings.
A writ petition challenging a summons issued under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act is premature and not maintainable, as such inquiry does not require a prior formal criminal report, and tax s....
Provisional Attachment Orders must have justified legal grounding, requiring explicit evidence of connections to alleged criminal activity, and prior judicial conclusions limit enforcement authority ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
