Page 167 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/SCB v. ASSTT. DIR., DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 213

(a) an offence punishable under Section 4 and any scheduled of-
fence connected to the offence under that section shall be tria-
ble by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the
offence has been committed :
Provided that the Special Court, trying a scheduled offence be-
fore the commencement of this Act, shall continue to try such
scheduled offence; or
(b) a Special Court may, upon a complaint made by an authority
authorized in this behalf under this Act take cognizance of of-
fence under Section 3, without the accused being committed to
it for trial.
(c) if the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled of-
fence is other than the Special Court which has taken cogni-
zance of the complaint of the offence of money laundering
under sub-clause (b), it shall, on an application by the authori-
ty authorized to file a complaint under this Act, commit the
case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court and
the Special Court shall, on receipt of such case proceed to deal
with it from the stage at which it is committed.
(d) a Special Court while trying the scheduled offence or the of-
fence of money laundering shall hold trial in accordance with
the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974), as it applies to a trial before a Court of Session.
9. An argument advanced by the Special Prosecutor for the CBI was
that, both courts involved being sessions courts, no committal proceeding from
one sessions court to another was not legally possible. That was negatived by the
court below itself, by the impugned order in the light of Section 44(1) which
gives an overriding effect over other provisions of Cr.P.C. Further, Section
44(1)(c) specifically provides for an order of committal by one Court to another.
Yet another contention of the CBI was that, to attract Section 44(1)(c) of the Mon-
ey Laundering Act, special court under the PC Act, has to take cognizance of the
complaint of the offence under the Money Laundering Act and since the court
below has not taken cognizance of complaint of the offence of Money Launder-
ing, the question of committal under Section 44(1)(c) does not arise. This was also
rejected by the court below holding that, since the court below has taken cogni-
zance of a scheduled offence under the Money Laundering Act, Section 44(1)(c)
of the Money Laundering Act, applies.
10. The scheme of the Act shows that the definition of Money Launder-
ing as provided under Section 2(p) of the Act, which is referable to Section 3,
casts a criminal liability on any person who directly or indirectly attempts to in-
dulge or knowingly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a
party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the “pro-
ceeds of crime” and projecting it as untainted property and shall be guilty of of-
fence of money-laundering. Section 4 provides the punishment for money-
laundering. The object of the Act, is to prevent money-laundering and to provide
for confiscation of property derived from or involved in money-laundering and
for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. “Proceeds of crime” is de-
fined in Section 2(u) to mean any property derived or obtained, directly or indi-
rectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled of-
fence or the value of any such property. Scheduled offence under Section 2(y)
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  183