Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 2320
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
S.J. VAZIFDAR, G.S. SANDHAWALIA, JJ.
Karam Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
CWP No. 3317 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 22-12-2015
For the Appellant :Vikram Chaudhary, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ishya Goyal, Advocate, and Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate.
For the Respondents:D.D. Sharma and Suresh Batra, Advocates
Headnote:
The Court held that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is a complete statute and gives power to the authorities to investigate the offence of money laundering and the same is cognisable and non-bailable. The Court also held that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are applicable to the proceedings before the Special Court only in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the PMLA. The Court further held that the authorities under the PMLA have the power to arrest on the basis of reasons to be recorded in writing and the investigation for the purposes of money laundering for the collection of evidence gives the power to the authorities to arrest.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were doing their business at Gobindgarh and on 13.01.2015, when he was away for business, the officials of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) visited his residence in the morning and searched his house in the presence of his wife and nothing had been seized. He was a client of Mr. Mukesh Mittal, Advocate and he had been summoned vide summons dated 06.02.2015 and 09.02.2015, to appear before the officials of the ED and to bring documents. The said summons were issued under Sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 50 of the PMLA. Petitioner No.3 is an agriculturist and was involved in the business of construction and he was also a client of Mr. Mukesh Mittal and knows him for the last several years and had also filed an application for anticipatory bail, which is pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and he had also been summoned vide various summons (Annexures P8 to P15). Petitioner No.4 is alleged to be working in the office of Mr. Mukesh Mittal and he has also filed an application for anticipatory bail whereas petitioner No.5, Mr. Vineet Goyal who had done his B.Tech in Civil Engineering, started working as building contractor and also got involved in Real Estate business. His house was searched on 13.01.2015 and he was also a client of Mr. Mukesh Mittal. Petitioner No.6 is the brother of petitioner No.5, who are both sons of petitioner No.7, Mr. Y.K.Goel and certain documents had been seized by the officials and not returned. Their father was serving as a Doctor with the Punjab Government and not connected with the business of his two sons but he had also been summoned. Petitioner No.8 is a practising Advocate since the year 2006 and summons had been sent to him and he had also filed application for grant of anticipatory bail along with petitioner Nos.3 & 4. Petitioner No.9 is stated to be the real brother of petitioner No.4 and running his business at Village Suhin, Tehsil Rakkar, District Kangra. It was, accordingly, alleged that the said petitioners were nowhere connected or involved in any manner in the FIR registered by the U.T. Police and with the impugned ECIR and the officers of the respondent- ED had transgressed the circumscribed limits as well as illegally exercised investigating powers by assuming jurisdiction in a completely unlawful manner.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the offence of money laundering is cognisable and non-bailable and the authorities under the PMLA have the power to arrest on the basis of reasons to be recorded in writing. The Court also held that the provisions of the CrPC are applicable to the proceedings before the Special Court only in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the PMLA.
Issues: Whether the offence of money laundering is cognisable or non-cognisable. Whether the authorities under the PMLA have the power to arrest. Whether the provisions of the CrPC are applicable to the proceedings before the Special Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the PMLA is a complete statute and gives power to the authorities to investigate the offence of money laundering and the same is cognisable and non-bailable. The Court also held that the provisions of the CrPC are applicable to the proceedings before the Special Court only in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the PMLA. The Court further held that the authorities under the PMLA have the power to arrest on the basis of reasons to be recorded in writing and the investigation for the purposes of money laundering for the collection of evidence gives the power to the authorities to arrest.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition.
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of three Civil Writ Petitions bearing CWP Nos. 3317, 3314 & 1418 of 2015, since the questions of law are common between the parties. However, to dictate orders, facts have been taken from CWP No. 3317 of 2015 titled Karam Singh & others v. Union of India & others.
2. Challenge in the present writ petition, as per the amended primary prayer, is to the ECIR No.CDZO/05 dated 25/03/2013 (Annexure P37), vide which, the Assistant Director of the Directorate of Enforcement (for short the 'ED') has registered a case under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of the Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, the 'PMLA'). The ancillary challenge is further to the summons issued to the petitioners by the officers of the ED under Section 50 (2) & (3) of the PMLA on the ground that the offences are non-cognisable in nature and in the absence of any prior sanction/order of a Magistrate, the investigation being conducted by the said authorities, is not justified. Prayer has also been made that if the offences are cognisable, then investigation be done by some other authorities/officers, appointed/authorised than respondents No.2 to 4 and direct examination and recording of statement of the petitioners in the presence of their Advocate. Videography be conducted during the examination and recording of the statements of the petitioners and for quashing the action of the respondents, seizing the bank accounts of the petitioners.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents are investigating the matter in ECIR No.CDZO/05 dated 25/03/2013, relating to FIR No.4 dated 22.07.2009, lodged at Police Station (Vigilance) Chandigarh under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120B IPC and 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered against one Mr.G.S.Sawhney, Advocate, his Clerk, Harnek Singh, O.P. Mittal (now deceased), Sant Ram (Retired Superintendent of Estate Office) and Narinder Kumar Verma, Jr.Assistant in the Estate Office. The said ECIR was registered on complaint of one Tara Singh, resident of United Kingdom, who was a client of Mr.G.S.Sawhney and it was alleged that the power of attorney of Harnek Singh was forged. The said power of attorney had been used for execution of sale deed in collusion with Mr.G.S.Sawhney, who was representing Mr.Tara Singh in a suit for specific performance and the trial of the said case was pending in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The ECIR (Annexure P37) in question was registered and the petitioners were nowhere connected or involved and associated with the said FIR. Petitioner No.1 was doing his business at Gobindgarh and on 13.01.2015, when he was away for business, the officials of the respondents visited his residence in the morning and searched his house in the presence of his wife and nothing had been seized. He was a client of Mr.Mukesh Mittal, Advocate and he had been summoned vide summons dated 06.02.2015 and 09.02.2015, to appear before the officials of the ED and to bring documents. The said summons were issued under Sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 50 of the PMLA.
4. Petitioner No.3 is an agriculturist and was involved in the business of construction and he was also a client of Mr.Mukesh Mittal and knows him for the last several years and had also filed an application for anticipatory bail, which is pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and he had also been summoned vide various summons (Annexures P8 to P15). Petitioner No.4 is alleged to be working in the office of Mr.Mukesh Mittal and he has also filed an application for anticipatory bail whereas petitioner No.5, Mr. Vineet Goyal who had done his B.Tech in Civil Engineering, started working as building contractor and also got involved in Real Estate business. His house was searched on 13.01.2015 and he was also a client of Mr.Mukesh Mittal. Petitioner No.6 is the brother of petitioner No.5, who are both sons of petitioner No.7, Mr.
