Page 165 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/SCB v. ASSTT. DIR., DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 211

Rotomac Global Private Ltd. v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
— Insolvency No. 140 of 2019 — Relied on ................................................................................ [Para 17]
Varrsana Ispat Ltd. v. Deputy Director — Company Appeal No. 493 of 2018 — Relied on ......... [Para 17]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Sasthamangalam S. Ajitkumar, Advocate, for
the Petitioner.
S/Shri Suvin R. Menon, CGC and Shaijan C.
George, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The petitioner herein is the Inspector of Police CBI, Cochin
unit, who is the complainant in C.C. No. 3 of 2014 of the Special Judge,
(SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam.
2. The accused is the second respondent in the above case. CBI regis-
tered RC7(A)/2012 alleging that the second respondent, being a public servant
had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income and invest-
ed it in the name of his family members. Pursuant to the crime registered, inves-
tigation was conducted and final report was laid. Cognizance was taken by the
Special Court and pursuant to the summons issued, accused appeared.
3. In the meanwhile, the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
(PMLA) filed Crl. M.P. No. 1106 of 2017 before the Special Court, invoking Sec-
tion 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter re-
ferred to as ‘Money Laundering Act’).
4. It was claimed that the offence involved in the present case was a
scheduled offence under the Money Laundering Act, and that the Directorate of
Enforcement had registered crime ECIR/l/KCZO/15 for offences punishable
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Money Laundering Act. After completion of inves-
tigation, complaint was laid before the designated Court under the Money
Laundering Act, which is the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam. Cognizance
was taken. The matter is now pending as S.C. No. 329 of 2017.
5. It was stated in the above application that, as per the scheme of the
Money Laundering Act, the Special Court has to try the scheduled offences and
connected matters under the Money Laundering Act. Hence, it was requested
that, C.C. No. 3 of 2014 pending before the CBI Court may be committed under
Section 44(1)(c) of the Act to the designated Court under the Money Laundering
Act. Detailed objection and additional objection were filed by the CBI. After hear-
ing both sides, court below, by the impugned order allowed the application,
which is under challenge in the proceedings. CBI has challenged the above order
contending that the order was passed by the court below on a wrong apprecia-
tion of the legal principles involved in the case.
6. Learned Special Prosecutor for the CBI, Mr. Sasthamangalam S. Ajith
Kumar, invited my attention to the detailed objection filed before the court below
raising the legal issues involved. It was contended that, under the Money Laun-
dering Act, prosecution has to be initiated by filing a complaint in writing under
Section 44(1)(b) r/w 45(1) of the Act. Only a special court designated by the Cen-
tral Government by notification under the above Act can try the offences com-
mitted under that Act. However, trial of offence under the Prevention of Corrup-
tion Act (hereinafter referred as ‘PC Act’) can be done only by a Special Judge
appointed by the Central Government by notification under the provisions of the
PC Act. It was further contended that, special court in an offence constituted un-
der the PC Act can hold trial only in accordance with the procedure of trial of a
warrant case, by a magistrate. However, under Section 46(1) of the Money Laun-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  181