Delhi High Court
Directrorate Of Enforcement vs Surajpal & Ors. on 10 August, 2018
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10.08.2018
+ CRL.REV.P. 67/2017
DIRECTRORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Petitioner
versus
SURAJPAL & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI
with Ms. Krishanu Bawa, Advocates.
.
For the Respondent: Mr. Aditya Vikram with Mr. Avinash,
Advocates for R-1 to 3.
Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Mr.
Akhilesh Kumar and Mr. Raghav
Nagar for R-4.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
10.08.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. No.1025/2017 (for condonation of delay)
1. It is submitted that several administrative authorities had to be
consulted for taking a decision of filing the present petition, on
account of which, delay took place in filing the present petition.
2. In view of the averments made in the application as also the
arguments advanced, I am of the view that the petitioner has explained
the delay in filing the petition. Accordingly, the delay in filing the
petition is condoned.
3. The application is allowed.
CRL.REV.P. 67/2017 & Crl.M.A.1023/2017 (stay)
1. The petitioner/Directorate of Enforcement impugns order dated
26.11.2015, passed by the Trial Court, as also order dated 28.03.2016,
passed by the District & Sessions Judge, transferring/committing the
case to the Court of Special Judge (Central), Tis Hazari under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as
"Money Laundering Act").
2. A complaint under Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C., which is a scheduled offence
under Money Laundering Act, was filed against the respondents
before the court of metropolitan magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts.
3. With regard to money laundering, a complaint was filed by the
petitioner, which is being tried by Special Judge, Patiala House
Courts, under the Money Laundering Act.
4. In the complaint filed under Section 55 of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972 which was pending in the Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts an application under
Section 44(1)(c) of the Money Laundering Act, was filed by the
petitioner seeking transfer of the said case under the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972 to the Special Court that had taken cognizance
of the complaint of the offence under the Money Laundering Act.
5. Said application was allowed by order dated 19.11.2015 by the
Court of ACMM, who held that the Complaint Case under Section 55
of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is liable to be committed to the
Special Court under the Money Laundering Act, where proceedings
qua the respondents for the offence of money laundering are pending.
For the said purpose, the matter was placed before the District &
Sessions Judge.
6. By the impugned order dated 26.11.2015, noticing the fact that
there was a Notification dated 01.11.2012 of the Delhi High Court
empowering all the Courts of Sessions or Additional Sessions Judges
in Delhi to be Special Courts under the Money Laundering Act, the
District & Sessions Judge transmitted the case back to the Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate for passing appropriate orders.
7. By order dated 18.03.2016, the Court of Metropolitan
Magistrate reviewed its own earlier order dated 19.11.2015 (whereby
is was held that the proceedings are liable to be committed/transferred
to the Special Court where proceedings qua the offence of money
laundering qua the respondents were pending), and committed the
matter to the Court of Sessions and/or Additional Sessions Judges,
(Central District) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi and for the said purpose
placed the matter once again before the District & Sessions Judge. It
is these orders that are impugned herein.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that apart
from the issue of competence of the Trial Court to review its own
order, Section 44(1)(c) of the Money Laundering Act mandates that
on an application being made, the case pertaining to scheduled
offence is to be transferred to the Special Court that has taken
cognizance of the complaint of the offence of money laundering under
the Money Laundering Act.
9. Section 44(1) (c) of Money Laundering Act reads as under:
"If the court which has taken cognizance of the
scheduled offence is other than the Special court which
has taken cognizance of the complaint of the offence of
money laundering under sub-clause (b), it shall on an
application by the authority authorized to file complaint
under this act, commit the case relating to schedule
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."
10. Reading of Section 44(1)(c) of the Money Laundering Act
shows that on an application being moved by the authorised authority,
the Court, which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence, is to
transfer/commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the
Special Court that has taken cognizance of the complaint of the
offence of money laundering under sub- clause (b) of Section 44(1) of
the Money Laundering Act.
11. It may be noticed that Section 44(1)(c) of the Money
Laundering Act uses the expression "the Special Court". The use of
the expression "the Special Court", shows that the intention of the
legislature is that the Special Court that has already taken cognizance
of the complaint of the offence of money laundering would be the
Court to which committal has to take place and not any Special Court
which may be empowered by a Notification under the Money
Laundering Act.
12. Even if the proceedings pertaining to a scheduled offence were
pending before a special court notified under the Money Laundering
Act and that court is not the special court that had taken cognizance of
the offence of money laundering, on an application being moved by
the authorised authority, even that special court would be mandated to
transfer/commit the proceedings to the special court that has taken
cognizance of the offence of money laundering.
13. In view of the above, I am of the view that the impugned orders
dated 26.11.2015 and 28.03.2016 suffer from material irregularity and
cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated
26.11.2015 and 28.03.2016 are set aside.
14. The Complaint Case No.123/1/2013 under Sections 55 of the
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is transferred to the Court of Special
Judge, Patiala House Court, under the Money Laundering Act before
whom the Complaint Case No.04/2015 titled "B.K. Singh, Assistant
Director, Directorate of Enforcement versus Surajpal @ Chacha &
Others" under the Money Laundering Act is pending. The said Court
shall, on receipt of the case, deal with it from the stage at which it is
committed.
15. In view of the above, the petition is allowed in the above terms.
16. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
AUGUST 10, 2018
st
