Page 163 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/SCB v. ASSTT. DIR., DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 209

2020 (372) E.L.T. 209 (Ker.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sunil Thomas, J.
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/SCB
Versus
ASSTT. DIR., DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Crl. M.C. No. 2178 of 2019, decided on 8-11-2019
Money-laundering - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
(PMLA) - Jurisdiction over scheduled offence cases - Committal of criminal
complaint pending before CBI Court under Section 44(1)(c) of Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 to designated Court, challenged - HELD : Preven-
tion Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not contemplate that offence under
Money Laundering Act and predicate offence shall both be tried by same Spe-
cial Court under Money Laundering Act - Existence of impugned Section
44(1)(c) ibid visualizes existence of two separate proceedings before two
Courts, one being Special Court under Money Laundering Act - Section
44(1)(c) ibid confers authority on authorized officer under Money Laundering
Act to make application requesting Court to commit case relating to predicate
offence to Special Court - Hence, unless such application made, predicate of-
fence shall be continued in Court competent under PMLA - Section 71 ibid,
does not create absolute overriding effect of Money Laundering Act, over all
other statutes but applies only in limited sense to extent of inconsistency of
other statutes over Money Laundering Act - Hence, if case such where Court
taking cognizance of scheduled offence other than Special Court which has
taken cognizance of complaint of offence of Money Laundering, competent
authority under Money Laundering Act given discretion to make application
under Section 44(1)(c) ibid in appropriate cases, in interest of justice and for
speedy trial - Court required duly apply its mind and take proper decision in
accordance with law - In other cases, Special Court trying offence under Mon-
ey Laundering Act need to wait for result of trial relating to scheduled offence
- Impugned order not legally sustainable and set aside - Section 44(1)(c) of
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. - Money Laundering Act beyond doubt
indicates that, it does not contemplate a trial of predicate offences and the offence under
the Money Laundering Act by the Special Court simultaneously, in every case. Though
under Section 43(2) of Prevention Money Laundering Act, 2002 it is clarified that, while
trying an offence under the Act, Special Court shall also try an offence, other than an
offence under sub-section (1), with which the accused may be charged under the Cr.P.C.,
the Parliament in its wisdom has not extended it to a trial of scheduled offence, simulta-
neously by the Special Court under the Money Laundering Act. On the other hand, Sec-
tion 44(1)(c) stipulates that the committal of the scheduled offence to the Special Court
under Money Laundering Act, can be ordered only on an application by the authority
under the Money Laundering Act, which is authorized to file a complaint under the Act.
Conversely, it implies that in the absence of any such application, both Courts can inde-
pendently proceed with the trials. [paras 13, 21, 27, 30, 31, 32]
Interpretation of Statutes - Section 44(1)(c) of Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 - Authorized officer competent to lay complaint vested
with solemn discretion to carefully apply his mind and only in appropriate
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  179