Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3643
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.HARIPAL, J
N.JAYAMURUGAN – Appellant
Versus
THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY (UNDER PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT), REP BY THE CHAIRMAN – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 13990 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.SREEKUMAR (SR.), BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM, K.M.ANEESH, N.R.R. ARUN NATARAJAN, SHASHANK DEVAN
For the Respondents: SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA, SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
The court ruled that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act applies even if the accused is discharged from related offences, recognizing the continuing nature of the charges under the IPC, reinforcing that jurisdictional objections are not valid when alternative remedies exist.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 2(u), 5(1), 50(2), 50(3) and 8 - The petitioner sought reliefs asserting lack of jurisdiction by enforcement authorities due to his discharge from related offences under the Lotteries Regulation Act. The court reiterated that the existence of alternative remedies under the PMLA precludes writ petitions unless exceptional circumstances arise. The court found no merit in the petitioner’s claims regarding elimination of proceeds of crime as he remained liable for ongoing charges and could not avoid proceedings commenced under the PMLA (Paras 20, 29, 30).
(B) Jurisdiction - The court affirmed that the principle of issue estoppel barred the petitioner from re-litigating matters previously determined by the Madras High Court regarding the efficacy of available administrative remedies (Paras 27, 28).
(C) Continuing Offences - The ruling emphasized that offences under the IPC alleged against the petitioner continued, rendering PMLA proceedings valid and justifiable despite the petitioner’s partial discharge on certain charges (Paras 21, 26).
(D) Discharge Orders - The court clarified that a partial discharge on allegations does not render related enforcement actions invalid or devoid of merit, especially regarding ongoing inquiries into proceeds from the lottery business (Paras 23, 24, 34).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction under prevention of money laundering act (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. nature of lottery operation and charges against petitioner (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on legal arguments and charges (Para 10 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. arguments regarding jurisdiction and maintainability (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. criteria for invoking writ jurisdiction amid alternative remedy (Para 28 , 30 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. final conclusion: writ petition dismissed (Para 36) |
JUDGMENT
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs:-
“a) Declare that the Respondents 2 and 3 herein have no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings as against the Petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act since the petitioner cannot be held to be in possession of any proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2 (u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 after the petitioner has been discharged in respect of alleged offences under Section 4 (d) and 4(f) of the Lotteries Regulation Act and Rule 4(5) of the Lotteries Regulation Rules, by order dated 20.01.2018 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam in C.C. No. 218/2015 and the same was confirmed by the order dated 26.02.2020 in R.P. No. 26 of 2018 and R.P.No. 27 of 2018 passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
b) to issue a writ of prohibition or any other writ, order or Direction prohibiting the Respondents 2 and 3 from summoning/taking any proceedings against the Petitioner under Section 50 (2) and (3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and by issuing any other summons under (2) and (3) of the and attach the properties of the Petitioner/his relatives or companies floated by the Petitioner under Section 5 of the and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
c) to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in ECIR/4/KCZO/2014 (AZ), dated 09.02.2017, in so far as the petitioner is concerned and also calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in the Provisional Attachment Order No. 2/2017 in ECIR/4/KCZO/2014(AZ), dated 09.02.2017 issued under Section 5 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the consequential original complaint in O.C. No. 695/2017 filed by the second respondent before the 1st respondent under (5) of PMLA and quash the same as without jurisdiction and ultra vires of the and consequently forbear the 1st respondent from proceeding with the adjudication proceedings under section 8 of PMLA in O.C. No. 695/2017 and pass such orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”
2. Petitioner is the fifth accused in C.C. No. 218/2015 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Ernakulam which arose from the final report filed by the CBI alleging offences under Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code , Sections 4 (d), 4(f) and 9 read with 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 , for short ‘LR Act’ and Rules 3(5) and 4(5) of the Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010 , for short ‘LR Rules’. The petitioner is the partner of M/s. M.J. Associates, Palakkad. At the instance of the State of Kerala, 32 crimes were registered against accused persons including the petitioner in different police stations. Later, investigation of all the crimes were handed over to the CBI at the instance of the State. After investigation, the CBI referred 23 crimes, a compiled final report was laid in seven crimes from which C.C. No. 218/2015 arose. Investigation is yet to conclude in the remaining two crimes.
3. According to the petitioner, on 06.08.1999 by an agreement, the Government of Sikkim had appointed M/s. Martin Lottery Agencies Limited, re-named
