JUDGMENT

18.03.2024

01. 482 of the Cr.P.C for challenging order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge (Special Court, Designated under PMLA), Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as “the Special Judge”), whereby cognizance of offences on basis of supplementary complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner has been taken and thereafter process has been issued against him.

02.

on behalf of the respondent.

03.

04. offences under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) was filed by the respondent against six accused, including the petitioner herein, before the learned Special Judge. As per the said complaint, the accused persons, which included the petitioner, were found involved in a case arising out of FIR No. 302/2012, registered with Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the RPC. It was further alleged that provisionally attached amount of Rs. 32,34,633/- as also the moveable and immoveable property worth Rs. 1,16,49,649/- are proceeds of crime acquired by the accused, who had indulged in the commission of the scheduled offences that are subject matter of the aforesaid FIR. On the basis of these allegations, it was alleged that the accused have committed offence under Section 3 of PMLA, which is punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. It appears that the learned Special Judge vide his order dated 16.07.2018 took cognizance of the offences and recorded that prima facie offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA are shown to have been committed by the accused. Accordingly, the process was directed to be issued against the accused including the petitioner herein.

05. the accused, a supplementary complaint came to be filed by the respondent on 07.08.2023 against some of the accused, including the petitioner herein. It has been alleged in the supplementary complaint that the provisionally attached properties valued at Rs. 11,25,50,000/ are acquired by the petitioners in active collusion with his son S. Gurwinder Singh and nephew Harmeet Singh out of the scheduled offences and that the aforesaid properties are proceeds of the crime. It has been prayed in the complaint that cognizance of offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA and punishable under Section 4 of the said Act against the accused persons including the petitioner may be taken and they may be punished in accordance with law. A further prayer has been made for confiscation of the attached proceeds of the crime.

06. been issued against the petitioner and the co-accused. While doing so, the learned Special Judge has observed that prima facie the complaint discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused for offences under

Sections 3/4 of the PMLA.

07. ground that it was not open to the learned Special Judge to take cognizance of the offences second time and to issue process against the petitioner, who was already facing prosecution before the Special Judge in the first complaint filed by the respondent against him before the said Court. It has been contended that taking of the cognizance a second time for the same occurrence is unknown to law and that the learned Special Judge has no procedural justification under the criminal jurisprudence to pass the impugned order. It has been further contended that a supplementary complaint could not have been filed by the respondent against the petitioner as there is no such provision of law akin to Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, available for dealing with the complaint cases.

08. petition. The first issue is whether the supplementary complaint could have been filed by the respondent against the petitioner and co-accused in respect of the same occurrence, which is subject matter of the initial complaint. The second issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the learned Special Judge was justified in taking cognizance of offence on the second occasion an