Page 171 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/SCB v. ASSTT. DIR., DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 217

been expressed by the Jharkhand High Court in Anosh Ekka’s case also. That
Court had taken note of the different procedure for investigation under the Mon-
ey Laundering Act, the procedure for taking cognizance under the Act and the
powers of the special court under that court, which is distinct from that under
the PC Act. Evidently, the committal under Section 44(1)(c) can only be for the
simultaneous trial of both cases and not for a joint trial. Definitely, there cannot
be a consolidation of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and
the offences under the Money Laundering Act. On an evaluation of the law, the
Jharkhand High Court in the above case concluded that, special court trying the
offence under Money Laundering Act shall wait for the result of the trial relating
to scheduled offence. It was held that, this was the practical solution of the mat-
ter and that would also expedite the trial.
24. The Learned Special Prosecutor for CBI invited my attention to the
decision of the Madras High Court in R. Subramanian v. CBI (Crl. O.P. No. 6703 of
2019). In that case, crime was registered against the officials of bank and a com-
pany for offences punishable under Section 120B r/w 420 of IPC and Section
13(2) r/w 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After investigation, final
report was laid and cognizance was taken by the Additional Metropolitan Magis-
trate as C.C. No. 9635 of 2014. In the meanwhile, complaint was laid by Enforce-
ment Directorate under Section 43(1) of the Money Laundering Act, against the
accused as C.C. No. 4 of 2018, before the special court. One of the accused ap-
proached the Madras High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C with a prayer to
adjourn the proceedings in C.C. No. 9655 of 2014 of ACJM, till it was transferred
to the Special Court constituted under Money Laundering Act.
25. The contention of the petitioner therein was that, proceedings in
C.C. No. 9635 of 2014 related to a predicate offence of C.C. No. 4 of 2019, pending
before the special court under Money Laundering Act. It was contended that, in
the light of Section 44(1)(a) of the Act, the offence under Section 4 of the Act, and
any scheduled offence connected to the said offence shall be triable by the special
court, having jurisdiction where Money Laundering offence was committed. It
was also argued that, Section 71 of the Act also provided that the Act will have
overriding effect and as such jurisdiction of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate
stood ousted in respect of the connected predicate offence to which the im-
pugned proceedings related.
26. Refuting the above contentions, the High Court held that the main
object of constituting a special court under Money Laundering Act was for a
speedy trial of offences under the Act. Hence, it was held that, merely because a
complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent before the special court with regard
to money-laundering, it cannot be stated that the case investigated by CBI with
regard to the aforesaid crime also has to be tried by the special court under the
Act. Hence, inasmuch as an offence of money-laundering was not charged by
CBI, the proceedings before the CBI cannot be transferred on the mere fact that
aforesaid offence was the basis of money-laundering. If such a view was adopt-
ed, all the cases pertaining to predicate offences should be stayed once the com-
plaint under Money Laundering Act is filed in special court, it was held. The
court proceeded to hold that, cases pending before other courts than special
court under Money Laundering Act relating to scheduled offences, cannot be
transferred and it can only commit the cases to special court on filing necessary
application by authority concerned under Section 44(1)(c) of the Act. Court
opined that since the offence of money-laundering was inextricably linked to the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  187