Karnataka High Court

Sri Abbas Mohammed Khan vs The Deputy Director on 25 January, 2022

Bench: K.Natarajan

                           1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

        WRIT PETITION No.14245/2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN
SRI ABBAS MOHAMMED KHAN
S/O LATE ILYAS MOHAMMED KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.33, NORTH ROAD, CENTRE,
HUTCHINS ROAD,
MARUTI SEVANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 084.
REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SRI HAFEEZ MOHAMMED KHAN,
S/O LATE ILYAS MOHAMMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.35, HAINES ROAD,
NEAR COLES PARK,
FRAZER TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 005.                     ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI KIRAN S JAVALI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
 SRI K CHANDRA SHEKARA, ADVOCATE (VIDEO
CONFERENCE))
AND

1.    THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
      ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ,
      3RD FLOOR, B BLOCK,
      BMTC BUILDING,
      SHANTINAGAR, TTMC,
      K H ROAD,
      BENGALURU-560 027
      BY PARASHIVAMURTHY M K

2.    THE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
      REP BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
      SHRI BASAVARAJ R MAGDUM,
      BENGALURU ZONAL OFFICE,
                             2




      3RD FLOOR, B BLOCK,
      BMTC, SHANTHINAGAR,
      TTMC, K H ROAD,
      BENGALURU-560 027.                  ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE, SPECIAL COUNSEL)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 01.10.2019 TAKING COGNIZANCE IN SPL
C.C.NO.1088/2019 ANNXURE-B ON THE FILE OF THE XXI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES BENGALURU
CITY.

      THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.01.2022 AND COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-accused

No.9 through his Attorney Holder under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') praying to

quash the order dated 01.10.2019 passed in Spl. CC

No.1088/2019 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions

Judge, (Special Judge for CBI Cases), Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Special Counsel for

respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Respondent No.2 the Assistant Director of the

Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as

'ED') filed a complaint against the petitioner and others

before the Special Court for the offences punishable

under Sections 44 and 45 read with Sections 3, 70, 4,

and 8(5) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

(hereinafter referred to as 'PML Act') for punishing the

accused persons of the offences punishable under

Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act. It is alleged by the

complainant in his complaint that an FIR in Crime

No.73/2019 was registered by the Commercial Street

Police, Bengaluru on 09.06.2019 against M/s. IMA

Company Ltd., I Monetary Advisory Private Ltd.

(hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. IMA') and also against

Mohammed Mansoor Khan, the Managing Director of

M/s. IMA for the offences punishable under Sections 406

and 420 of IPC. It is alleged that the Managing Director

of M/s. IMA and other Directors of the company started

Ponzy Scheme in the name and style of various entities

and received huge amount of money from general

public with a promise of high returns on their

investments and diverted the fund and cheated more

than 30,000 middle class people and lower middle class

people. It is further alleged that the accused entities

and directors are indulged in the offences of money

laundering by cheating the general public and through

Ponzy Scheme, generated proceeds of crime in the form

of movable and immovable properties and the offence

under Section 420 is a scheduled offence under the

provisions of the PML Act. It is further alleged that on

the statement of co-accused recorded by the police,

accused No.1 and its associates were charged with

Section 420 of IPC, which is a scheduled offence under

the PML Act. Respondent No.1 Deputy Director of ED

had conducted investigation and had issued provisional

attachment order on 27.06.2019 in

ECIR/BGZO/03/2019 and sought confiscation of those

properties which were already challenged before the

appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal is said to be

allowed the prayer of the petitioner and released some

of the properties by furnishing some surety.

4. The petitioner has challenged the very

authority of respondent No.2 by filing the complaint

against him before the Court by raising the questions of

law, which are as under:

The petitioner submits that this Petition raises the following questions of law:

(a) Whether the Central Government has issued general or special authorization for Officers on deputation to be Deputy Director in the office of the Directorate of Enforcement, under the PML Act.

(b) Whether the Directorate of Enforcement could have bestowed powers on such an Officer to be an Officer as provided under Section 48 of the PML Act.

(c) Whether the registration of ECIR by an Officer acting as Deputy Director the PML Act, in the absence of general or special authorization, is valid at Law.

(d) Whether the provisional Attachment Order once issued and confirmed by the adjudication Authority could have caused the Officer exercising power as Respondent to conduct further investigation and issue another Provisional attachment Order contrary to the provisions of the PML Act.

5. It is contended that the aforesaid questions of

law go to the very root of exercise of power of

respondent No.1- Deputy Director of ED for initiation of

proceedings under the PML Act.

6. The petitioner has also raised the following

issues by challenging the authority of respondent No.1

Deputy Director of ED which is as under:

The Petitioner submits that this Writ Petition would also consequentially require consideration by this Hon'ble Court to the following issues:

(a) Whether the Central Government in issuing a vacancy circular in exercise of the powers under Section 49(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act for appointing officers from other departments as Deputy Director of Enforcement have been authorized and communicated to the selected officers for appointment as Deputy Director and exercise those powers.

(b) Whether the order of appointment issued by the Central Government represented by Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India has specifically authorized

the selected officer viz Deputy Director on deputation basis, as "Authority" for purposes of Section 2(1)(j) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (15 of 2003)

(c) If the Central Government has not issued any appointment order specifying the Deputy Director as an "Authority" under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the status and legality of the vacancy circular; the order of appointment issued by Central Government; and the posting order posting the Deputy Director on deputation basis in Enforcement Directorate issued by the Director of Enforcement, for purposes of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, and the legality thereof.

            (d)      Whether mere issue of vacancy
     circular     and    issue    of    appointment    order

appointing such officers as Deputy Director on deputation basis can be considered or assumed to be authorization as "Authority" under Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (15 of 2003).

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner would contend that respondent No.2, who is a

Superintendent of Police working in Lokayukta, has

been deputed to work as an Assistant Director of ED

and he is not at all eligible as he is a State Police Officer

and respondent No.1 is a Deputy Director of ED. Both

these officers have no authority under the PML Act to

proceed against the petitioner and they have not been

authorized to conduct investigation as per the definition

under Section 2(na) of PML Act. There is no specific

authorisation given to respondent No.2, who is a Group-

B officer, authorizing him to investigate into the matter.

There is no separate authorisation or any notification

issued under the PML Act for conducting investigation.

The questions raised by the petitioner in the petition

para Nos.7 and 8 has not been answered. The

respondent have no authority of law and there is wrong

exercise of power and the act done is not in accordance

with law. Therefore, the very complaint is not

sustainable and nullity in the eye of law. The learned

Senior Counsel further submitted that respondent Nos.1

and 2 are the deputed officers. There is no separate

authorization issued as per Section 51 of the PML Act

and the police cannot investigate the matter as provided

under Section 45(1A) of the PML Act. The appointment

order of respondent No.2-Assistant Director of ED under

Order No.144/2017 is contrary to Section 45(1A) of the

PML Act and even the exercise of power also runs

contrary to Section 2(na) of the PML Act. The learned

Senior Counsel further contended that the authorization

of officials is different from the appointment of officials.

The language used in the Government Order cannot go

against the provisions of the PML Act. He has no

authority for filing the complaint and also to investigate

into the matter and therefore, the respondent could not

have sought for confiscation of the properties and

hence, prayed for quashing of the complaint.

In support of his arguments, the learned Senior

counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court reported in the case of M/S. CANON

INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF

CUSTOMS reported in 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 200.

8. The respondents have appeared through the

learned Special Counsel and filed statement of

objections. The sum and substance of the statement of

objections is that the Deputy Director has been

appointed in accordance with Sections 48, 49 and 51 of

the PML Act and once he has been appointed as Deputy

Director under the PML Act, he shall exercise the powers

conferred under the provisions of Section 51 of the Act.

Once the Central Government has authorized the

authorities under the Act and has made any

appointment by way of deputation, there is no

requirement of any separate authorization for carrying

out the functions. The Deputy Director Sri

Parashivamurthy has been duly appointed and

authorized as per Order No.101/2018 dated

22.06.2018. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner

cannot be acceptable.

The learned Special Counsel has also contended

that the authorities under the Act appointing the

respondent Assistant Director was in accordance with

the Government Order. Once he has appointed and

deputed to work in ED, the officer gets all the authority

for investigating into the matter. The contention of the

petitioner's counsel that Grade-B officer cannot be

appointed to a Grade-A rank for carrying out of the

functions, is not correct as the PML Act does not make

any distinction of Grade-A and Grade-B officers for the

purpose of appointment. The PML Act enumerates only

the class of officers to be appointed as authorities and

once the officer is duly appointed as authority under the

PML Act, the officer is empowered to exercise the

functions in terms of Section 51 of the PML Act. The

learned Senior Counsel also contended that he is

denying all the averments made by the petitioner in the

petition and also parawise allegations made in the

petition and accordingly, prayed for dismissing the

petition.

In support of his arguments, the learned counsel

for respondent relied upon the following judgments:

(i) J Sekar Vs. Union of India (2018 SCC OnLine Del 6523)

(ii) Pradeep S. Wodeyar Vs. State of Karnataka (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1140)

9. Having heard the arguments of the learned

Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for

respondent perused the records.

10. It is the specific case of the petitioner that

Central Government did not issue any special

authorization for the officer on deputation to be worked

as deputy director and Assistant Director in the office of

the Directorate of Enforcement and PML Act. As such,

no powers conferred on those officers under Section 48

of the PML Act, absolutely there is no authority or filing

the complaint by the Assistant Director against the

petitioner under the PML Act. The vacancy circular also

not available to show the exercise of power under

Section 49(1) of PML Act and on the deputation basis as

authority for the purpose of investigation no special

order has been passed therefore, the action taken by

the respondent under the PML Act is nonest in the eye

of law. On the other hand the respondent counsel

produced the documents in order to show the

appointment of the respondent 1 and 2 by way of

notification issued by the Central Government which is

in accordance with the Section 45(1A) of the PML Act

and also if an officer deputed to the ED by showing their

designation, the officers will get all powers vested in the

PML Act and they can exercise the jurisdiction under the

Act.

11. For the convenience, the second proviso to

Section 45 as under:

"Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by -

(i) the Director; or

(ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government."

12. The amendment to Section 45 came into

force with effect from 1.7.2005 as per Section 45 (1-A)

of PML Act as under:

"(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Prcedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorised, by the Central Government by a general or special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed."

13. On bare reading of Sub-section (2) to the

2nd proviso to the section 45 (1) of PML Act empowers

any officer of the Central Government or a State

Government authorize in writing in this behalf by a

Central Government by a general or special order made

in this behalf by that Government. The amendment to

provision 45 i.e., 45 (1-A) provides that no police

officers shall investigate into an offence under this Act

unless specifically authorized by Central Government by

a general or special order and subject to such conditions

as may be prescribed.

14. On perusal of the same in my opinion, the

complaint in this case has been filed by respondent 2

who is the Assistant Director, working in Enforcement

Directorate, (ED) filed the complaint by exercising the

power under the PML Act. The learned Senior counsel

for the petitioner has strenuously contended the Asst.

Director post was filled up by deputation from the police

department and he is B group officer and he cannot be

posted to Group A cadre but the respondent counsel

submits there is no such eligibility criteria prescribed for

the posting and the Central Government issued a

notification posting the officers by exercising the power

under Section 49 of PML Act for convenience it is

necessary to refer the Sections 48 and 49 of the Act as

under:

"Section 48. Authorized under Act - There shall be the following classes of authorities for the purposes of this Act, namely:-

(a) Director or Additional Director or Joint Director,

(b) Deputy Director,

(c) Assistant Director, and

(d) such other class of officers as may be appointed for the purposes of this Act."

"49. Appointment and powers of authorities and other officers.--

(1) The Central Government may appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be authorities for the purposes of this Act.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Central Government may authorise the Director or an Additional Director or a Joint Director or a Deputy Director or an Assistant Director appointed under that sub-section to appoint other authorities below the rank of an Assistant Director.

(3) Subject to such conditions and limitations as the Central Government may impose, an authority may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on it under this Act."

15. The counsel for the respondent produced

the notifications issued by the Central Government for

the officers were being deputed to work in ED and

exercise the power under the PML Act.

16. The counsel for the respondent also

produced appointment order notification dated

1.7.2005 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of

Finance, Department of Revenue in the Gazette which is

as under:-

"G.S.R.440(E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 49 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act 2002 (15 of 2003), the Central Government hereby appoints, with effect from the 1st day of July, 2005, the Director of Enforcement holding office immediately before the said date under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999), as the Director to exercise the exclusive powers conferred under Section 5, section 8, section 16, section 17, section 18, section 19, section 20, section 21, sub-section (1) of section 26, section 45, section 50, section 57, section 60, section 62 and section 63 of the said Act and the said Director shall also concurrently exercise powers conferred by sub-section (3), sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) of section

26, section 39, section 40, section 41, section 42, section 48, section 49, section 66 and section 69 of the afore-said Act."

17. The another general order dated 11.11.2014

which is read as under:-

"In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section on ( ) of section 45 of the prevention of Money laundering Act 2002 (15 of 2003) hereafter referred to as the Act), the Central Government hereby authorizes the officers not below the rank of Assistant Directors in the Directorate of Enforcement to file complaint under Section 45 of the Act before the designated Special Court constituted under sub-section (1) of section 43 of the Act for trial of offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act."

18. On reading of the above said notifications,

admittedly the officers working under ED are deputation

posts borrowing the officers from other office of the

Central Government including the police officials from

the State Government. The notification dated

11.11.2014 the Government of India authorizes the

officers not below the rank of Assistant Directors in the

ED are empowered under Section 45 of the PML Act to

file the complaint before the special Court constituted

under Section 43 (1) of the PML Act for the trial of

offence punishable under Section 4 of the PML Act.

19. The respondent counsel also produced the

administrative order of the ED issued by the Central

Government of India dated 18.8.2017 by order

(admission) No.144/2017, at Sl.No.14. Basavaraj R.

Magdum who is ranked Superintendent of Police worked

in Karnataka Lokayuktha has been selected and

appointed as Assistant Director of ED on the deputation

basis. The said notification of the Central Government

in respect of the deputation of Basavaraj as Assistant

Director on 18.8.2017. This notification was not

challenged by any person aggrieved before the court or

set aside by any court. Once a police officer of DSP

rank has been deputed to work as Assistant Director in

ED, and the said officer become an authorized officer

under Section 45 (1A) of the PML Act and once he has

taken charges as Asst. Director of ED he can exercise

the power to investigate the matter as provided under

Section 2(na) of the PML Act.

20. On bare reading of Section 48, it refers the

classes of authorities for the purpose of PML Act as

Director or Additional Director or Joint Director, Deputy

Director, Assistant Director and such other classes of

officers as may be appointed for the purpose of this Act.

Here in this case, Basavaraj Magdum was a Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta and he has been

selected and appointed as Assistant Director by the

Central Government exercising the power under Section

49(1) of the PML Act.

21. As I have already stated above, the order of

appointment issued by the Central Government dated

01.07.2005 empowers the officers for appointment to

be worked as authorities under the ED. By an

appointment order dated 18.08.2017 Basavaraj

Magdum was selected and appointed on deputation

basis and posted to work as Assistant Director until

further orders with effect from 29.09.2017. This

administrative order (Admn. No.144/2017) clearly

reveals that, on 29.09.2017, the said officer Basavaraj

R. Magdum took charge as Assistant Director on

deputation basis. Therefore, once the officer is posted

as an Assistant Director, the Government by exercising

power under Section 49(1) of the PML Act, he becomes

the Assistant Director for the purpose of Section

48(1)(c) of the PML Act.

22. Sub-Section (2) of Section 49 of PML Act

defines that without prejudice to the provisions of sub-

section (1), the Central Government may authorise the

Director or an Additional Director or a Joint Director or a

Deputy Director or an Assistant Director appointed

under that sub-section to appoint other authorities

below the rank of an Assistant Director. Sub-section

(3) of Section 49 imposes conditions and limitations as

the Central Government may impose, an authority may

exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred

or imposed on it under this Act. On this background of

appointment of respondent No.2 as Assistant Director,

he can exercise the power under the PML Act for filing

the complaint as per Section 45 of the PML Act in view

of the notification dated 11.11.2014.

23. Therefore, respondent No.2 as an Assistant

Director who after taking charge, is empowered to file

the complaint before the Special Court under Section 45

of PML Act. The complainant has categorically stated in

the complaint at first para stating that the complaint

being filed under Sections 44 and 45 of the PML Act for

commission of offence defined under Section 3 of the

PML Act read with Section 70 and 8(5) and Section 4 of

the PML Act and the complainant has been an

authorized officer for filing this complaint in view

of authorization issued by the Government of India,

Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New

Delhi in F. No.6/14/2008-ES dated 11.11.2014.

Therefore, once the officer is posted as an Assistant

Director, he has exercised the power and filed the

complaint before the Special Court. Therefore, the

contention of the learned Senior Counsel that

respondent No.2 has no authority to file the complaint

cannot be accepted.

24. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of M/s. Canon India Private

Limited. (supra) in respect of the Customs Act before

the Central Excise against the order in respect of the

matter dealt with the Central Excise and Service Tax

Appellate Tribunal. But, in the facts and circumstances

of the case, the said judgment is not applicable to the

case on hand for the reason stated above.

25. Another contention raised by the learned

Senior Counsel is in respect of the appointment of the

1st respondent-Deputy Director in respect of issuing the

provisional attachment order on 27.06.2019 under

Section 5(1) of the PML Act where the provisional

attachment order has been challenged by him before

the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal said to

have allowed the claim of the petitioner and passed an

order. The provisional attachment order has not been

challenged before this Court and therefore, the question

of challenging the appointment of one Parashivamurthy

M.K. as Deputy Director does not arise. The order

under Section 5 of the PML Act is nothing but an

administrative order which was challenged before the

Appellate Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal is not

before this Court and not challenged in this petition.

Therefore, the question of considering the power of the

respondent No.1 cannot be dealt with by this Court in

this petition. Respondent No.2 has filed the complaint

as Assistant Director which is in the nature of charge

sheet and there are two different proceedings in view of

the order passed under Section 5 and filing complaint

under section 45 of the PML Act. Therefore, the

contention of the petitioner's counsel at paragraphs 7

and 8 of the petition questioning the authority of

respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not sustainable and the

respondents are the authorities under the PML Act and

who have been duly appointed by the Central

Government and they exercised their power under the

Act which is within the jurisdiction under the PML Act.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the issue in respect

of the proceedings under Section 5(1) of the PML Act

regarding provisional attachment orders passed by the

Deputy Director has been upheld in the case of J.

SEKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in 2018 SCC

Online DEL 6523. Therefore, this Court cannot find

any illegality or irregularity in filing the complaint by

respondent No.2 in order to set aside the same.

26. The other contention raised by the learned

Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the Special

Court has not applied its mind while taking cognizance

and has also not passed a detailed order. In this regard,

I have perused the order of taking cognizance by the

Special Court, wherein the Special Court has stated

that it has perused the charge sheet and taken

cognizance against accused Nos.1 to 26 for the offences

under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act and ordered to

accused persons and NBW to the petitioner herein. It is

submitted that accused No.9 is in abroad and not in

Bengaluru and he has appeared through his attorney

Holder. In this regard, the learned counsel for

respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in PRADEEP S. WODEYAR VS. STATE

OF KARNATAKA report in 2021 SCC online SC 1140.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring the case of

Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta and also the Pepsi Foods

Ltd. case, at paragraph 86, has categorically held as

under:

86. xxxxxx

"23. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge- sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge-sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence

based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking it on file."

(emphasis supplied)

27. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Pradeep S. Wodeyar's case (supra),

the trial Court need not pass a lengthy order for taking

cognizance in respect of the challan filed by the police

after the investigation. The application of mind and the

detailed order is required only while taking cognizance

in the private complaint filed by the complainant.

Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel

that the trial Court has not applied its mind while taking

cognizance cannot be acceptable.

28. On perusal of the entire records, respondent

No.2 is an authorised officer under the PML Act

appointed as per Section 49 of the PML Act and he is

one of the officers specified under Section 48 of the PML

Act. By issuing the notifications, the Central

Government has empowered the officer to file the

complaint before the Special Court and respondent No.2

is not officer who comes below the rank of the Assistant

Director. Therefore, the question of quashing the