Page 172 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

218 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

predicate offence, it will be in the ultimate interest of the prosecution to see that
charges for predicate offence are proved, so as to bring the amounts involved in
the cases for the predicate offence, within the ambit of definition of “proceeds of
crime”. That was the reason why the Legislature in its wisdom has given the op-
tion to the department to seek for a committal, rather than to give the option to
the accused, so that delay may not be caused in the trial of offence for the predi-
cate offence, it was held.
27. It is true that, Section 44(1)(a) of the PMLA provides that, an offence
under Section 4 of the Act and scheduled offence connected to the offence under
Section 4 shall be triable by the special court under the Act. This read with Sec-
tion 71 of the Act which gives an overriding effect over all other law in force,
may at first blush, give an impression that, there is substance in the contention
that the offences under Money Laundering Act and their scheduled offences
shall be tried by the special court constituted under the said Act. As indicated
earlier, Section 71 of the Act does not create an absolute overriding effect of
Money Laundering Act over all other statutes. It applies only in a limited sense
that the Act will override to the extent of inconsistency of other statutes over
Money Laundering Act. The interpretation given to Section 44(1)(a) that, by vir-
tue of it, all the predicate offences and the offences under Money Laundering Act
shall be tried by the special court constituted under the Money Laundering Act
does neither stand to reason, nor does it get its support from the scheme of that
Act. If such an interpretation is given, Section 44(1)(c) which enables the author-
ized officer under Act to seek a committal of predicate offence pending in anoth-
er court to the special court under the said Act, will be rendered meaningless and
redundant.
28. Section 44(1)(a) of Money Laundering Act has to be read in conjunc-
tion with Section 43(1) of the same Act, which authorizes a special court under
that Act to try also an offence other than an offence punishable under Section
4(1) of the Act, with which the accused may be charged at same trial under the
provisions of the above Act. If the intention of the Legislature was to provide
that, all scheduled offences and their connected offences under the Money Laun-
dering Act, shall be tried by the special court constituted under the Money
Laundering Act, there was no reason for providing in Section 44(1)(a) that, it
shall be triable only by the special court “constituted for the areas in which the
offence has been committed”. It may be possible that, when a scheduled offence
and the offence under Section 4 of the Money Laundering Act are charged under
Section 43(2) of the Act the scheduled offence may be committed within the ju-
risdiction of one special court and the offence under Section 4 of PMLA may be
committed within the jurisdiction of another special court, the question of juris-
diction of the Court which is competent to try the offences arises. Section 44(1)(a)
to my mind, addresses it. That precisely is the reason why the Statute use the
words “only by the special court constituted for the area in which the offence has
been committed”.
(emphasis supplied).
The statutory provision refers to two offences. Firstly the scheduled offence and
the other, offence punishable under Section 4. In deciding whether the special
court within whose jurisdiction the scheduled offence was committed or the Spe-
cial Court within whose jurisdiction offence under Section 4 was committed, Sec-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  188