O R D E R

P.N. PRAKASH, J.

On a complaint lodged by Selvaraj and his wife Rani, the Economic Offences Wing of the State police registered a case in Cr. No. 9 of 2009 on 16.12.2009 under Section 420 IPC against JBJ City Developers and its Proprietor Justin Devadoss.

2 Likewise, on a complaint lodged by one Ragothaman, the Economic Offencs Wing of the State police registered another case in Cr.No.1 of 2010 on 25.01.2010 under Sections 341, 352, 420 and 506(I) IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act against JBJ City Developers Ltd. and its Managing Director Justin Devadoss.

3 The allegation in Cr.No.9 of 2009 is that JBJ City Developers Ltd.

promised to allot two plots in a layout titled “Little Singapore” near Koyambedu and collected a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from the de facto complainants, but, eventually, cheated them.

4 The allegation in Cr. No.1 of 2010 is that JBJ City Developers had collected deposits from the de facto complainant to the tune of Rs.1 lakh with the assurance that it will get doubled in six months. It is, however, alleged that the accused cheated the de facto complainant.

5 Since Section 420 IPC, which figures in both the FIRs, is a 'schedule offence' within the meaning of Section 2(y) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for brevity “the PML Act”), the Enforcement Directorate suo motu, registered a case in ECIR No.10 of 2011 on 20.01.2011 and took up investigation of the case under the PML Act in order to find out if the accused in the FIRs had indulged in money laundering.

6 After completing the investigation, the Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint in C.C. No.57 of 2016 against Justin Devadoss (A.1), Bella Justin (A.2), JBJ City Developers Ltd. (A.3) and Samuel Sunder Singh George Knudson (A.4) for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act and the case is now pending trial on the file of the IX Additional Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai.

7 On appearance of the accused, the copies of the relied upon documents were furnished to them and trial began with the examination of the prosecution witnesses.

8 On 20.01.2011, when the Special Public Prosecutor was examining the Assistant Director of Enforcement in-chief, he sought to mark the record relating to ECIR No.10 of 2011 dated 20.01.2011 as a prosecution exhibit, which was objected to by the defence on the ground that the said document was not the original but a photocopy and insisted on marking of the original.

9 At that juncture, the learned Special Public Prosecutor filed a memo to dispense with the filing of the original on the ground that the same is with the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi and prayed for dispensing with the filing of the same. The memo reads as under :

“DISPENSE WITH MEMO FILED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT It is humbly submitted that with great respect that this Hon’ble Court was pleased to permit the complainant to proceed with the trial by accepting the true and certified copy of the ECIR No.10/CEZO/PMLA/2011 dated 20.01.2011 at this stage and the complainant department is undertake to file petition to send for the original ECIR from the adjudicating authority, New Delhi under Section 300 of the CRP in order to conduct trial for prospective and regarding the same the complainant enforcement department is taking steps to produce the original ECIR No.10/CEZO/PMLA/2011 which is pending the adjudicating authority enforcement directorate New Delhi and undertake to produce the said ECIR during the end of the trial and hence at these extent this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the complainant department to proceed with the trial by filing the other documents.

Hence, with great respect, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to record the submission made in this memo and pleased to dispense the complainant department from producing the original ECIR No.10/CEZO/PMLA/2011 dated 20.01.2011 at this stage and to permit PW1 to adduce further evidence and to mark the relevant documents stated in the complaint and pleased to thus render