Page 164 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

210 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

cases where committal to Special Court will not defeat prosecution and enable
speedy disposal of case and achieve purpose of Statute should file application
- Terms “it shall” in impugned Section 44(1)(c) ibid following words “under
sub-clause (b)” does not make it mandatory on Court to allow every applica-
tion, without due application of mind and de hors merits of case - Section
44(1)(a) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. [para 30]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - Offences under
Money Laundering Act to be investigated by competent authorities under
concerned statute and tried by Court competent under that Act - Since sine qua
non for prosecution of offence under Money Laundering Act to be existence of
proceeds of predicate offence, conviction of offence under Money Laundering
Act depends on establishment of predicate offence and generation of proceeds
of that crime. [para 12]
Interpretation of Statutes - Section 44(1)(a) of Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 - Statutory provision refers to two offences viz. sched-
uled offence and offence punishable under Section 4 ibid - In deciding wheth-
er Special Court within whose jurisdiction scheduled offence committed or
Special Court within whose jurisdiction offence under Section 4 committed
ibid Section 44(1)(a) ibid provides that, Court constituted for area in which
offence committed - Section 44(1)(a) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002. [para 28]
Money-laundering - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
(PMLA) - Jurisdiction over predicate offence cases - Scope of Section 44(1)(c)
ibid read along with Section 71 ibid - Since non obstante clause in Section
44(1) ibid applies only to procedural matters, impugned Section 71 ibid cannot
support contention that Section 44(1) ibid overrides substantive law in relation
to Statutes covering predicate offence - Section 71 ibid itself clarifies that pro-
visions of Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent there-
with contained in any other law - Evidently, Money Laundering Act, having
primacy in field of operation to which Act extends and within that domain,
same to have overriding effect over any other inconsistent provisions in other
Statutes - Section 71 ibid not omnibus overriding effect over all other Statutes
- Section 44(1)(c) and Section 71 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
[paras 16, 17]
Money-laundering - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
(PMLA) - Whether, competent authority obligated to seek committal of
obliged predicate offence in every case - HELD : Parliament did not intend to
make it obligatory on authorized officer under Money Laundering Act to in-
variably make application under Section 44(1)(c) ibid - Otherwise, committal
under Section 44(1)(c) ibid would not have been dependent on application by
competent officer under Money Laundering Act - Section 44(1)(c) of Preven-
tion of Money Laundering Act, 2002. [para 15]
Crl. M.C. allowed
CASES CITED
Anil Goel v. Deputy Director — CP (IB) 70/ALD of 2017 — Relied on ........................................... [Para 17]
Anosh Ekka v. Enforcement Directorate — W.P. (Cr.) No. 257 of 2012 by
Jharkhand High Court — Followed ........................................................................... [Para 18, 23, 29, 31]
R. Subramanian v. CBI — Crl. O.P. No. 6703 of 2019 By Madras High Court — Relied on ......... [Para 24]
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  180