The PMLA's application is concerned with the ongoing nature of financial misconduct, allowing proceedings even for actions predating its enforcement, where evidence showcases potential 'proceeds of crime'.

Judgment

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. The legality, propriety, and correctness of the order dated 02.09.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, C.B.I.-I, Bhubaneswar in Crl. Misc. (PMLA) Case No.06 of 2015, has been called in question in this revision. The Petitioners herein are Sri K. Badri Narayan Patro and Smt. Puspanjali Patro.

2. The background facts of the case, in brief, are that the Inspector of Police, Vigilance, lodged a written report alleging that the Petitioner, namely Sri K. Badri Narayan Patro, Ex-Executive Engineer, R.W. Division, No.1, Ganjam, Berhampur, while serving as a public servant in different capacity during the check period from 01.01.2000 to 29.05.2009 and finally posted as Executive Engineer, had accumulated assets to the tune of Rs.1,09,81,686/-. Pursuant thereto, an investigation was initiated and searches were conducted at his residential house located at Akarapuri Colony, Old Town, Bhubaneswar, his office, official quarters at Berhampur, and other places on the strength of search warrant issued by the learned Special C.J.M.-cum-Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in Misc. Case No. 08 of 2009. During the course of the search, assets worth Rs.97,14,683/- were found to be disproportionate to the known sources of income of the Petitioner. Accordingly, a prima facie case of misconduct was found against the petitioner involving commission of an offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and a charge- sheet was submitted on 19.09.2012. Subsequently, a separate and independent inquiry was conducted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and a complaint was filed under Section 5(1) of the said Act. The Petitioners, thereafter, filed an application before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I.- I, Bhubaneswar under Section 227 Cr.P.C., praying for their discharge from the case. However, the learned court having heard the parties, declined to grant the relief sought and rejected the prayer for discharge in respect of the offences alleged against them vide the impugned order.

3. Mr. U. C. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). It was contended that there is no material to demonstrate the existence of “proceeds of crime” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, nor any act of concealment, possession, acquisition, or use thereof so as to attract the provisions of the PMLA. In absence of such foundational facts, the continuation of the proceeding is stated to be unsustainable. It was further argued that no grave suspicion arises from the materials on record so as to justify framing of charge and that the learned court below erred in rejecting the application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel contended that the 2009 amendment to the PMLA, brought into force with effect from 01.06.2009, operates prospectively and cannot be applied to transactions pertaining to the earlier check period. The finding of the learned court that the provisions of the PMLA would apply retrospectively is assailed as erroneous both in law and on facts.

Learned counsel next submitted that compliance with Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. is mandatory before taking cognizance of offences alleged to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of official duties. According to him, sanction by the competent authority, including the Central Government while initiating proceedings under the PMLA, is a sine qua non,