THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
DATED : 31st March, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crl.Rev.P. No.01 of 2020
Petitioner : Directorate of Enforcement (PMLA)
versus
Respondents : Vinay Rai and Others
Application under Section 47 of the Prevention of
Money-Laundering Act, 2002 read with Sections
401/397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Ms. Sangita Pradhan, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Ms. Gita Bista and Mr. Yogesh Kumar
Sharma, Advocates for the Respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Ms. Zola Megi and Mr. Yogesh Kumar
Sharma, Advocates for Respondents No.3, 4, 5 and 8.
Mr. Rahul Rathi and Ms. Lidya Pradhan, Advocates for the
Respondents No.6 and 10.
Mr. Hemlal Manger, Advocate for the Respondents No.7, 12 and
13.
Mr. Jorgay Namka, Senior Advocate with Mr. Simeon Subba,
Advocate for the Respondent No.9.
Mr. Zangpo Sherpa, Mr. Manabendra Thakur and Ms. Anjali
Shah, Advocates for the Respondent No.11.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R (ORAL)
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. By filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under
Section 47 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
(hereinafter, "PMLA, 2002"), read with Sections 401/397 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner herein impugns
the Order dated 31-10-2019 of the Learned Special Judge,
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, East Sikkim, at
Gangtok, in Sessions Trial (PMLA) Case No.01 of 2018 Crl.Rev.P. No.01 of 2020 2
Directorate of Enforcement (PMLA) vs. Vinay Rai and Others
(Enforcement Directorate vs. Vinay Rai and Others), discharging all
the opposite parties/accused persons of the offences under
Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002.
2. Today before this Court, Learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India submits that although the grounds for challenge
have been detailed in the Revision Petition, however in view of the
ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and 1 Others vs. Union of India and Others she does not seek to pursue
the matter. This, in view of the fact that the Judgment has laid
down the law pertaining to the provisions of the PMLA and the
Scheduled offences.
3. Leaned Counsel for the opposing parties submit that
they have no arguments to advance in light of the fair submissions
advanced by Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India.
4. I have heard the submissions put forth by Learned
Counsel for both parties and I have also perused the Judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra).
The Supreme Court in Paragraph 467 observed as follows;
"467. In light of the above analysis, we now proceed to summarise our conclusion on seminal points in issue in the following terms:--
....................................................................................
(d) The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity connected with such property, which constitutes the offence of money-laundering. The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. If the person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of
1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 Crl.Rev.P. No.01 of 2020 3
Directorate of Enforcement (PMLA) vs. Vinay Rai and Others
money-laundering against him or any one claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him.
......................................." [emphasis supplied]
5. It is now settled law that there cannot be a standalone
offence under the PMLA, 2002, when Scheduled offences are not
made out against the accused persons.
6. In light of the specific submissions of Learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India, the Criminal Revision Petition stands
disposed of as not pressed.
7. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
8. Copy of this Order be forwarded to the Learned Trial
Court for information along with its records.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai ) Judge 31-03-2023
Approved for reporting : Yes
ds/sdl
