Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 21077
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
RANA AYYUB – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – Respondent
W.P.(Crl.) No.-000012 - 2023
Ms. Vrinda Grover, Mr. Tushar Mehta
The jurisdiction for trying money-laundering offences lies exclusively with the Special Court where the offence was committed, as per the Prevention of Money-laundering Act.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 3, 43, 44, 45, and 71 – Jurisdiction of Special Courts – The trial of the offence of money-laundering must occur in the Special Court where the offence was committed, as established by the provisions of the Act. The court clarified that the issue of territorial jurisdiction should be determined based on evidence presented in the trial court. (Paras 12, 16, 36, 46)
(B) Jurisdiction – The court emphasized that the trial of the scheduled offence should follow the trial of the offence of money-laundering, and the Special Court has the authority to try both offences. (Paras 25, 36)
Facts of the case: The petitioner challenged a summoning order based on a complaint alleging money-laundering, asserting that the jurisdiction was improperly exercised as the alleged offence occurred outside the jurisdiction of the Ghaziabad court.
Findings of Court: The court ruled that the issue of territorial jurisdiction must be raised before the trial court, as it involves factual disputes requiring evidence.
Issues: The main issues were whether the trial of money-laundering should follow the trial of the scheduled offence and the jurisdiction of the Ghaziabad court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Special Court constituted under the PMLA has exclusive jurisdiction to try money-laundering offences, and the trial of the scheduled offence must occur in the same court where the money-laundering offence is tried.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging a summoning order (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 2. the trial of the scheduled (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
1. Challenging a summoning order issued by the Court of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI Court No.1, Ghaziabad, on a complaint lodged by the respondent under Section 45 read with Section 44 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 ,For short, “PMLA” or the “Act”, as the case may be, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
2. We have heard Ms. Vrinda Grover, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of SignatureI Nont Vedrifieida for the respondent.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pandemic, she initiated crowdfunding campaign through an online crowdfunding platform named “Ketto” and ran three campaigns from April 2020 to September 2021. In connection with the same, the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate initiated an enquiry against the petitioner under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ,
4. It appears that thereafter a complaint was lodged on 7.9.2021 by one Vikas Sankritayan, claiming to be the founder of Hindu IT Cell, in FIR No.2049/2021 with Indirapuram Police Station, Ghaziabad for alleged offences under Sections 403, 406, 418 and 420 IPC read with Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 4 of the Black Money Act.
5. In the meantime, the petitioner received an order under Section 37 of the FEMA read with Section 133(6) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 from the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate seeking certain documents, in addition to the documents submitted by the petitioner in response to the previous Office Order dated 3.8.2021 issued by the very same Mumbai Zonal Office.
6. After the petitioner submitted a detailed response to the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate, the Delhi Zone-II Office of the Directorate of Enforcement registered a complaint in ECIR No.DLZO-II/58/2021 on 11.11.2021, in the Court of the Special Judge at Ghaziabad. It was stated in the said complaint that the FIR registered on 7.9.2021 on the file of the Indirapuram Police Station, Ghaziabad formed the basis for the complaint of the Enforcement Directorate.
7. After the registration of the aforesaid complaint by the Enforcement Directorate, the petitioner was summoned to the Delhi Zone-II Office and her statement under Section 50 of the PMLA was recorded on 15.12.2021.
8. Thereafter, a provisional order of attachment of the bank account of the petitioner in HDFC Bank, Koperkhairane Branch, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, was passed by the Directorate of Enforcement on 4.2.2022. Pursuant to the order of provisional attachment, the Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause notice dated 8.3.2022.
9. While things stood thus, a Look out Circular was issued against the petitioner, but the same was set aside by the High Court of Delhi in a writ petition filed by the petitioner. In a second writ petition filed by the petitioner, the High Court of Delhi restrained the Directorate of Enforcement from taking further steps under Section 8 of the PMLA on the short ground that the validity period of 180 days, of the order of provisional attachment, came to an end statutorily on 4.8.2022.
10. Thereafter, the Court of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI Court No.1, Ghaziabad, passed an order on 29.11.2022 taking cognizance of the complaint lodged by the respondent and summoning the petitioner for appearance on 13.12.2022. Upon coming to know of the said Summoning Order, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. It is claimed by the petitioner in paragraph 5(v) of the writ pe
