Allahabad High Court
Rangnath Mishra And Another vs Directorate Of Enforcement, ... on 18 May, 2023
Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi, Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3712 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rangnath Mishra And Another
Respondent :- Directorate Of Enforcement, Ministry Of Finance Lko.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Pranjal Jain
Counsel for Respondent :- Rohit Tripathi, Kuldeep Srivastava
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the petitioners is taken on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the ECIR No. ECIR/13/LZO/2014 registered on 11.08.2014 under Section 3/4 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, along with all consequential proceedings in the interest of justice after calling for records relating to proceedings in said ECIR/13/LZO/2014.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent not to proceed, prosecute or arrest the petitioners in respect of the ECIR No. ECIR/13/LZO/2014 registered on 11.08.2014 under Section 3/4 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002."
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record.
The petitioners were booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short P.C. Act) registered as Case Crime No. 336 of 2012 under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2), Police Station Aurai, District Bhadohi.
Parallel proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (in short PML Act) were initiated against the petitioners by registering a case vide ECIR No. ECIR/13/LZO/2014 on 11.08.2014 with the Enforcement Directorate under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. Simultaneously the proceedings under Section 5 of the P.M.L. Act were drawn against the petitioners and an order of attachment was passed on 13.12.2021 by the adjudicating authority. Prior to the culmination of proceedings under Section 5 of the PML Act, petitioner no. 1 was acquitted of the offences, for which, he was charged under the P.C. Act in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2013 vide judgment and order dated 29.09.2021. The petitioners feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the adjudicating authority on 29.09.2021 in so far as the attachment of properties is concerned, approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13020 of 2021 (Rangnath Mishra and Another Versus Directorate Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Government of India and another). At the relevant point of time, an appeal arising out of the order passed by the adjudicating authority had already been filed but on account of the Tribunal being non-functional, the occasion to file the aforementioned writ petition arose to the petitioners. This Court after hearing the parties passed an order dated 04.01.2022 protecting the interest of the petitioners and simultaneously a direction for disposal of the appeal was issued. This is evident from the order passed by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition on 04.01.2022.
The present writ petition has come to be filed against the proceedings under Section 3/4 of the P.M.L. Act carried out in furtherance of a case vide ECIR No. ECIR/13/LZO/2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that once the petitioners have been acquitted for the predicate offence registered under the P.C. Act in the aforementioned trial, further proceedings arising therefrom under the PML Act cannot be proceeded with. In support of the argument put-forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners, he has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Others Versus Union of India & Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 929 as well as the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Naresh Goyal Versus The Directorate of Enforcement & Others passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4037 of 2022.
Learned counsel for the respondent in order to oppose the prayer for continuing with the proceedings under Section 3/4 of the PML Act has argued that the consequential order of attachment arising out of the proceedings has already been passed against which an appeal has been preferred by the petitioners before the appellate tribunal. Thus, the prayer made in the writ petition is misconceived.
We are conscious of the fact that the action of attachment under the P.M.L. Act and the proceedings under Section 3/4 P.M.L. Act are independent proceedings. Without prejudice to the ongoing proceedings of the appeal, further investigative proceedings in furtherance of the case vide ECIR No. ECIR/13/LZO/2014, under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are hereby kept in abeyance.
Let a counter affidavit be filed within three weeks.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List the matter in the month of July, 2023.
(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.) (A.R. Masoodi, J.)
Order Date :- 18.5.2023
Arun
