Madras High Court
The Assistant Director (Pmla) vs Ashok Anand on 25 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
Crl.R.C.No.1262 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
Crl.RC.No.1262 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.11046 of 2024
The Assistant Director (PMLA),
Directorate of Enforcement,
Ministry of Finance,
Chennai Zonal Office - II,
3rd Floor, Tower-II, BSNL Administrative Building,
Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.
... Petitioner/Complainant
Vs.
Ashok Anand ... Respondent/Accused No.2
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1908, to set aside the order dated 30.04.2024 passed
in Crl.M.P.No.4236 of 2023 in Special CC.No.2 of 2022 on the file of the Court
of Principal Sessions Judge Cum-Special Judge (Under PMLA) Act at
Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 17
Crl.R.C.No.1262 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ramesh
Special Public Prosecutor
For Respondent : Mr.M.S.Krishnan
Senior Counsel for
Mr.Anirudh Krishnan
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Under assail is the order dated 30.04.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4236 of
2023 in Special CC.No.02 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge (under PMLA Act) at Puducherry.
2. The Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement is the
revision petitioner and the respondent herein filed a petition under Section 309
of Cr.P.C. to postpone the commencement of trial in Special C.C.No.02 of 2022.
The Trial Court relying on the Judgements in the case of Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary Vs. Union of India, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 929 and the
subsequent cases allowed the petition, which provided a cause for the
Enforcement Directorate to institute the present revision petition.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
3. Mr.M.S.Krishnan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent would mainly contend that the Criminal Revision Petition is
not maintainable and beyond the scope of Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C. He would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
urge the Court that the order impugned cannot be construed as final order and
the trial alone is postponed pending disposal of the criminal appeal filed by the
respondent against the order of conviction passed in the predicate/schedule
offences.
4. It is not in dispute between the parties that the predicate offence
registered against the respondent ended with an order of conviction and an
appeal preferred is still pending. During the pendency of the criminal appeal, if
PMLA case is tried, there is likelihood of causing prejudice to the respondent.
Therefore, the trial court considered the fact that the predicate offence and the
PMLA offence are inter-linked and in the event of an acquittal, there is
possibility of exonerating the respondent from the PMLA proceedings and
under those surmises, the petition filed under Section 309 was allowed.
5. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the order under
challenge is an interlocutory order and there is an express bar under Sub Section
(2) to Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petition is liable to be rejected in
limine. Secondly, he would contend that the offence of money laundering under
Section 3 of PMLA is dependent on the schedule offence and once in the
schedule offence the accused is acquitted as per the legal position laid down in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Vijay Madhanlal Choudhary's case as cited supra, the accused in the PMLA is
entitled for an acquittal. Therefore, proceeding with the trial during the
pendency of the criminal appeal would cause prejudice to the interest of the
respondent, who is the accused in the PMLA case. Thus, the trial court is right
in allowing the petition. That apart, postponement of trial under PMLA, would
cause no prejudice to the Enforcement Directorate.
6. In support of the above contentions, the learned Senior Counsel
relied on the Judgment in the Case of Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. CBI reported in
(2017) 14 SCC 809, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted Section 397
of Cr.P.C.
7. In the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in
(2014) 3 SCC 92, the Apex Court made an observation that trial means
determined all issues adjudging the guilt or the innocence of a person, the
person has to be aware of what is the case against him and it is only at the stage
of framing of the charges that the Court informs him of the same, the "trial"
commences only on charges being framed.
8. Relying on the Judgments, the learned Senior Counsel would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contend that charges are yet to be framed. Admittedly, the trial has not
commenced. That being the stage which remains, no prejudice would be caused
in the event of postponement of trial in the PMLA case.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
9. Mr.N.Ramesh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would
strenuously oppose by stating that postponement of trial sine die would affect
the prosecution side. Right to speedy trial is a constitutional right available to
the accused as well as the prosecution and such a right need not be infringed
unnecessarily by invoking powers conferred under Section 307 Cr.P.C. Trial
Court has misunderstood the scope of Section 309 and postponed the trial.
Thus, the criminal revision petition is maintainable before the High Court under
Section 397 Cr.P.C.
10. It is contended that after recording ECIR, investigations are
conducted to trace out the offence of money laundering under PMLA. Once the
offence of money laundering is traced out, complaint under Section 44 and 45 of
PMLA has been registered. Therefore, the investigation conducted for the
offence of money laundering is independent and distinct. Thus, it cannot be
linked with the pendency of criminal appeal filed against the order of conviction
in the scheduled offence. Once the investigations are completed under PMLA,
the process become standalone process. Thus, the trial must go on.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ANALYSIS:
11. Considering the arguments as advanced between the learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
petitioner to the lis, Section 309 of Cr.P.C. provides power to postponement or
adjourn proceedings. Sub-Section (2) to Section 309 of Cr.P.C stipulates that " If
the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial,
finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of or adjourn,
any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded,
postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it
considers reasonable, any may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody."
12. In the context of Sub-section (2) to Section 309 of Cr.P.C, the
impugned order, which is under challenge in the present revision petition reveals
that the petition was filed to postpone the commencement of trial in the above
case. The trial court granted the relief of postponement of the commencement of
trial till the disposal of Crl.A.No.724/2018, which is pending before the High
Court in respect of schedule offence wherein, the respondent has been
convicted.
13. Section 397 (1) of Cr.P.C. reads as under:
"The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal
Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of
satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding. Sentence or order, recorded or passed,
and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court,
and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of
any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in
confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond
pending the examination of the record."
.......
14. Sub-Section (2) to Section 397 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:
"(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1)
shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order
passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding."
15. Sub-Section (1) to Section 397 of Cr.P.C. confers power to the High
Court to call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior
criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of
satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding.
16. Sub-Section (2) to Section 397 of Cr.P.C. states that powers of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
revision conferred by Sub-Section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to the
interlocutory order passed in any appeal inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
17. In the present case, an application filed under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
was allowed. The powers conferred on the High Court under Section 397 (1)
would be sufficient to entertain the criminal revision petition against the order
passed under Section 309 Cr.P.C. When the High Court is conferred with the
powers to verify the correctness and legality of the order, the revision petition
would lie. Thus, the maintainability point raised deserves to be rejected.
18. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent mainly contended
that in the event of an acquittal in the criminal appeal in the schedule offence,
the respondent is entitled to be exonerated from the PMLA proceedings. In this
context, it is relevant to consider the scope of PMLA.
19. Section 65 of PMLA stipulates that "Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 to apply." Accordingly, the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 shall apply, in sofaras they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the
Act, to arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation, investigation,
prosecution and all other proceedings under this Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20. When Section 65 of PMLA stipulates that the special enactment
namely PMLA would prevail over Cr.P.C. Thus, the reliance placed on by the
learned Senior Counsel would have no assistance to support the case of the
respondent. When the procedures contemplated under PMLA are independent
and distinct to other penal laws, the same would prevail over the general
provisions and the commencement of proceedings under PMLA, thereafter will
be a standalone process.
21. Section 71 of PMLA states that the provisions of PMLA shall have
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other
law for the time being in force.
22. Holistic reading of the provisions of PMLA would indicate that
schedule offence is prerequisite condition for initiation of proceedings under
PMLA. Once proceedings are initiated under PMLA by recording ECIR,
thereafter the investigation and offence of money laundering traced out by the
Enforcement Directorate become independent and to be dealt with under the
provisions of PMLA and the application of Cr.P.C is undoubtedly limited in
view of Section 65 and 71 of PMLA.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23. ECIR cannot be equated with FIR. The schedule offence is
quintessential for initiation of proceedings and recording of ECIR but both the
offences cannot be placed on the same footing. PMLA proceedings are distinct
and the said Act is a complete code in itself. Whereas scheduled offences are
tried under other penal laws. When two documents are difference and distinct in
their own nature, a combined reading and implication cannot be adduced to
them.
24. ECIR is born from FIR, but once the ECIR is born, the umbilical
cord that connects the ECIR with FIR looses its relevance and the ECIR
becomes an independent document in itself. Consequently, a new life in the
form of ECIR emerges, which has breath on its own without the support of FIR.
So, the FIR and ECIR become two different documents and both tend to take
shape on its own, independent of each other.
25. “Proceeds of Crime” is the focal point for an ECIR, whereas
scheduled offence is dealt with under the FIR. Further reliance may be relevant
with reference to the judgment in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs.
Union of India and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 929 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rajinder Singh Chada vs. Union of India3.. Both these judgments have noted
the distinction between FIR and ECIR. More so, ECIR is treated as an internal
document.
26. In Vijay Madanlal's case (supra), the relevant portion to support
this contention is, as extracted below;
“457. Suffice it to observe that being a special
legislation providing for special mechanism
regarding inquiry/investigation of offence of money-
laundering, analogy cannot be drawn from the
provisions of 1973 Code, in regard to registration of
offence of money-laundering and more so being a
complaint procedure prescribed under the 2002 Act.
Further, the authorities referred to in Section 48 of
the 2002 Act alone are competent to file such
complaint. It is a different matter that the
materials/evidence collected by the same authorities
for the purpose of civil action of attachment of
proceeds of crime and confiscation thereof may be
used to prosecute the person involved in the process
or activity connected with the proceeds of crime for
offence of money-laundering. Considering the
mechanism of inquiry/investigation for proceeding
3. W.P. (CRL) 562/2023 & CRL.M.A. 5126/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
against the property (being proceeds of crime) under
this Act by way of civil action (attachment and
confiscation), there is no need to formally register an
ECIR, unlike registration of an FIR by the
jurisdictional police in respect of cognizable offence
under the ordinary law. There is force in the stand
taken by the ED that ECIR is an internal document
created by the department before initiating penal
action or prosecution against the person involved
with process or activity connected with proceeds of
crime. Thus, ECIR is not a statutory document, nor
there is any provision in 2002 Act requiring
Authority referred to in Section 48 to record ECIR or
to furnish copy thereof to the Accused unlike Section
154 of the 1973 Code. The fact that such ECIR has
not been recorded, does not come in the way of the
authorities referred to in Section 48 of the 2002 Act
to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating civil
action of attachment of property being proceeds of
crime by following prescribed procedure in that
regard.”
27. Further, in the case of Rajinder Singh Chada vs. Union of India
cited supra, the Delhi High Court held as follows;
“32... Since the ECIR has not been equated with a FIR
and has been held to be an internal document, there cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
possibly be a restriction to bringing on record on any
subsequent scheduled offence registered by way of an FIR
alleged to have been committed in respect of the same
transaction which was the subject matter of such ECIR.
34 ...It is clarified that since this Court is of the opinion
that the ECIR, as explained in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary
(supra) cannot be equated with an FIR and as per the stand of
the department, the same is only for administrative purposes,
there is no impediment in taking the third FIR on record which
related to the same project forming the basis for registration of
the first two FIRs, resulting in initiation of the impugned
ECIR.”
28. In cases as such, where initiation of PMLA proceedings prima
facie proceeds of crime has been placed, there arises a pertinent question as to
whether the Court can stall such proceedings in spite of preliminary findings of
the existence of proceeds of crime. The conscience of this Court is directed
towards delivery of justice and though the FIR of schedule offence stands
quashed or the trial ended with an order of acquittal on mere technical grounds
without analysing the merit of the schedule offence, then the case is to be
considered on its merits. When "proceeds of crime" is placed in parallel
investigation by the Enforcement Directorate, this gives rise to another question
once proceeds of crime in prima facie unearthed and ECIR been brushed aside
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on the ground that the criminal appeal against an order of conviction is pending.
29. In the present case, PMLA proceedings are set in motion and
prima facie findings have already made, investigation completed and complaint
was filed. The Court has to frame charges and proceed with the trial. At this
stage, it is not a viable ground to take a view that pendency of criminal appeal
against an order of conviction is a bar for the continuance of trial with reference
to offence under PMLA.
30. A blanket application of the observations made by the Apex Court
in Vijay Madhanlal Choudhary's case will not advance the object set out under
PMLA, 2002 and in turn will defeat its primary object. The Vijay Madhanlal
Choudhary's case is a binding precedent for all Courts below and on careful
application of the judgement, analysing on a case to case basis, the output shall
defer for each case and not render the same result.
31. Therefore, the preposition laid down in Vijay Madhanlal
Choudhary's case being applied with reference to the petition filed for
quashment of ECIR or complaint need not be applied in the present case, in
view of the fact that the respondent has been convicted in the schedule offence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and the conviction as on today stands against him and mere pendency of the
criminal appeal need not be a ground for postponement of trial in PMLA case.
32. In any angle, pendency of a criminal appeal cannot be an absolute
bar for proceeding with the PMLA trial, which is now being undertaken by the
Special Court for PMLA. Both the trial in the schedule offence and the trial in
the PMLA case are distinct and different and the nature of offences are
distinguishable.
33. The wider implications and ramifications of the offence of money
laundering cannot be equated with the offence under the other penal laws. The
objective of PMLA are to protect the economic status of our Country. Therefore,
we are of the considered opinion that the trial court has committed an error in
postponement of PMLA trial during the pendency of the criminal appeal. The
same claim may be made by the convicted persons on the ground that they have
a right of further appeal to the Supreme Court and considering all these facts,
we are inclined to interfere with the order impugned.
CONCLUSION:
34. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 in
Crl.M.P.No.4236 of 2023 in Special C.C.No.02 of 2022 on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry is quashed and the criminal
Revision Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed. However, we made it clear, that the trial Court shall proceed
with the trial uninfluenced by the observations that have made with reference to
the facts of the case in the present order.
[S.M.S., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.]
25.09.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
veda
To
The Assistant Director (PMLA),
Directorate of Enforcement,
Ministry of Finance,
Chennai Zonal Office - II,
3rd Floor, Tower-II, BSNL Administrative Building,
Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
veda
25.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
