Jharkhand High Court
Directorate Of Enforcement vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Director ... on 21 March, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024
---------
Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi Zonal Office, Through Assistant Director, Vinod Kumar s/o Shri Jai Narain Pandey, Plot No.1502/B, Airport Road, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi, PIN-834002, Jharkhand.
....... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), F/49, Kanke Rd., Morabadi, Audrey House, P.O. + P.S. Kanke Road, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834001.
2. Alok Ranjan, Age-34 years, s/o Rajeshwar Prasad, R/o Gram P.O. & P.S. Labhri, Dist.-Siwan, Bihar, 841239.
3. Suresh Prasad Verma, age-62 years, s/o Late Hari Prasad, r/o Dev Hari Kunj, Road No-11, Anand Vihar Colony, Dimna, P.O. & P.S. Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831018.
....... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
-----------
th C.A.V. on 17 January, 2025 Pronounced on 21/03/2025
1. The instant criminal revision under Section 438 and 442 of B.N.S.S (Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), 2023 is directed against the order dated 12.08.2024 passed in Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2020 arising out of ACB Jamshedpur PS Case No.13 of 2019 by the learned Court, Special Judge, A.C.B., West Singhbhum at Chaibasa whereby and whereunder the petition filed under section 44(1) (c) of PML Act for committing the case relating to the scheduled offence to the learned Court of Special Judge, CBI-cum-Special Judge under PMLA, Ranchi has been rejected.
2. At the outset it needs to refer herein that vide order dated 13.12.2024 this Court while taking into consideration the adjournment sought by the opposite parties for filing response to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has directed to stay the trial in connection with Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2020 arising out of ACB Jamshedpur PS Case No.13 of 2019.
1 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024
3. The opposite party namely Alok Ranjan has preferred a SLP being Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s). 197 of 2025 against the order dated 13.12.2024 and the said SLP was disposed of vide order dated 07.01.2025 wherein liberty was granted to the petitioner to apply for vacating the interim order dated 13.12.2024 and directed the High Court to decide the application, if filed, in accordance with law.
4. The matter was heard on 17.01.2025 and on that day learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3 have jointly submitted that no such application has been filed rather they have submitted that the matter may be decided on merit finally since the counter-affidavit has already been filed in the case.
5. On the pretext of the aforesaid submission this Court has heard both the parties at length and since the pleadings were completed, the instant case was reserved for final adjudication by this Court.
Factual Matrix of the case:
6. The factual matrix leading to filing of the instant case in brief reads as under:
6.1 The ACB Jamshedpur registered an FIR No. 13/2019 dated 13.11.2019 registered u/s 7(a) of PC Act, 2018 against Shri Suresh OP. Prasad Verma (O.P. No. 3), then Jr. Engineer working in the Road Construction Department. The perusal of the said FIR further reveals that Vikas Kumar Sharma, s/o Shri Ramnath Sharma (a contractor working on behalf of her mother's firm M/s Jai Mata Di Enterprises) filed a complaint before the ACB Jamshedpur, against Suresh Prasad Verma alleging therein that Suresh Prasad Verma had demanded a bribe amount of Rs. 28,000/- against clearing of remaining amount of Rs. 4,54,964/- to be paid out of the total bill amount of Rs. 11,54,964/- as per the tender requirement.
Subsequently, ACB laid a trap and caught Suresh Prasad Verma red-handed taking a partial bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the contractor and arrested him on 14.11.2019. The same day, ACB conducted a search operation on the residential premises of Smt. 2 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 Pushpa Verma W/o Suresh Prasad Verma and seized cash of Rs. 63,870/- along with household jewellery, property and bank documents from the space owned by Smt. Pushpa Verma and it is noted that the rented premise on the first floor was sealed as the keys were not available.
6.2 Further, a search was also conducted on the next day i.e. on 15.11.2019 in the rented premises on the 1st floor of the same house which was in possession of O.P. No. 2 i.e. Alok Ranjan, and a huge cash amount of Rs. 2.67 Crore was seized from the almirah of one bedroom. Subsequently, Alok Ranjan was arrested by ACB Jamshedpur on the same day since he could not give any satisfactory answer regarding the seized cash found in his possession.
6.3 As per case diary no. 3941459 dt. 24.12.2019, O.P. No. 3 i.e. Suresh Prasad Verma in his statement before ACB, claimed that the cash amount seized belonged to Veerendra Kumar Ram, then Chief Engineer, Subernrekha Project and that his wife Rajkumari used to visit the rented-out premises of Alok Ranjan. Later, O.P. No. 2 i.e. Alok Ranjan in his written submission to the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Jamshedpur vide Letter no. 3929 dt. 30.12.2019 stated that he used to stay alone as a tenant in the first-floor room rented out by Smt. Pushpa Verma at the premises located at Dev Hari Kunj, Anand Vihar Colony, Road No. 11, P.S. M.G.M., Jamshedpur and the room was furnished by Sh. S.P. Verma including almirah from where the cash of Rs 2.67 crores was seized and Alok Ranjan also claimed that the said cash amount seized belonged to S.P. Verma since he used to visit Alok's rented premises at times and used Almirah with the key in Verma's possession as and when he needed. As per Alok Ranjan, the Almirah was even accessed by S.P. Verma in Alok's absence and on objecting, S.P. Verma used to say that his personal belongings were kept in the said almirah. Alok Ranjan further claimed that he only used the bed and kept his belongings in the trunk.
3 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 6.4 After investigation, ACB Jamshedpur filed a charge sheet No. 01/2020 OPs dated 11.01.2020 against both the O.Ps. i.e. Suresh Prasad Verma & Alok Ranjan under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
6.5 Further, on 03.02.2020 Learned Special Judge -Vigilance Court, West Singhbhum took cognizance of the charge sheet No. 01/2020 dated 11.01.2020 under Section 7(a) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code against Suresh Prasad Verma and Alok Ranjan.
6.6 Further, Special Judge-Vigilance Court, West Singhbhum vide order dated 06.06.2022 framed charges against O.P. No.3 under Section 7(a), 12 of PC Act and Section 201/120B of IPC and against O.P. No. 2 under Section 201 and 120B of IPC.
6.7 Subsequently, an ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020 dated 17.09.2020 was recorded on the basis of the above-discussed FIR No. 13/19, dated 13.11.2019 registered u/s 7(a) of PC Act, 2018 by ACB, Jamshedpur and the Final Report No. 01/2020 dated 11.01.2020 submitted by ACB, Jamshedpur therein under Section 7(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 and 201, 120B of IPC against Suresh Prasad Verma and Alok Ranjan.
6.8 During the course of the investigation on Veerendra Kumar Ram and his close associates, several searches were conducted at various places across India. It was found that part of the proceeds of Crime acquired in the form of taking commission/bribe in lieu of allotment of tenders by Veerendra Kumar Ram, Chief Engineer in Rural work department, Jharkhand was getting routed by a Delhi-based CA Mukesh Mittal to the bank accounts of family members of Veerendra Kumar Ram with the help of bank accounts of Mukesh Mittal's employees/relatives.
6.9 It has also come that Veerendra Kumar Ram used to give cash to Mukesh Mittal who with the help of other entry providers used to make entries in the bank accounts of his employees and relatives and then such fund was transferred into the bank accounts of Raj 4 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 Kumari (wife of Veerendra Kumar Ram) and Shri Genda Ram (father of Veerendra Kumar Ram). Further, it is also ascertained that some bank accounts opened (at Delhi) on the basis of forged documents were also being used in such routing of funds. Therefore, information related to the same was shared with the Delhi Police under Section 66(2) of the PMLA.
6.10 Further, on the basis of the information shared under section 66(2) of PMLA, 2002 to Commissioner of police, Delhi, Police head quarter, on 03.03.2023 an FIR NO. 22/2023, was registered by Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Delhi against) Veerendra Kumar Ram, (ii). Mukesh Mittal, and (iii). Unknown others under section 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 473, 474, 476, 484 and 120 B of IPC, 1860, and section 7 and 5 of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017.
6.11 As Section 120B, 419, 420, 471, 473,476 and 484 are scheduled offences under Part A of Schedule to the PMLA, 2002(as amended) and in light of the additional facts and recent development emerging out of the investigation, FIR No. 22/2023 registered by EOW, Delhi was merged with the investigation of ECIR No. RNSZO/16/2020. Accordingly, an addendum was issued on 05.04.2023 and vide the same addendum, FIR No. 22/2023 was merged with the investigation of ECIR No. RNSZO/16/2020.
6.12 Subsequently, a Prosecution Complaint under Section 45 r/w Section 44 of PMLA, 2002 was filed before Learned Special Judge
- PMLA, Ranchi on 21.04.2023 against the following accused persons (i) Veerendra Kumar Ram (ii) Alok Ranjan (Respondent No. 2)(iii) Rajkumari (iv) Genda Ram, and the cognizance of the same is taken on 29.04.2023.
6.13 Further, a supplementary prosecution complaint under Section 45 r/w Section 44(1)(d)(ii) of PMLA, 2002 is filed before Learned Special Judge - PMLA, Ranchi on 20.08.2023 against the following accused persons (i) Mukesh Mittal (ii) Tara Chand (iii) Neeraj Mittal (iv) Ram Parkash Bhatia (v) Harish Yadav and (vi) Hirdya 5 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 Nand Tiwari and the cognizance of the same was taken on 22.08.2023.
6.14 Accused i.e. Veerendra Kumar Ram in his statement under Section 50 of PMLA also stated that the whole process of collection and distribution of commission was taken care of by the assistant engineers posted at the Rural Development Special Zone and Rural Works Department.
6.15 Thus, taking into consideration aforesaid nexus of the cases, Petitioner accordingly, filed an application under Section 44(1)(c) of PMLA, 2002 before the Learned Special Judge -Vigilance Court, West Singhbhum for committing the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Learned Special Judge-PMLA, Ranchi.
6.16 Further, reply dated 06.07.2024 were filed by the O.P. No. 2 and 3 objecting to the application under Section 44(1)(c) of PMLA,2002 stating that the same is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.
6.17 The Learned Special Judge -Vigilance Court, West Singhbhum vide order dated 12.08.2024 has dismissed the application under Section 44(1)(c) PMLA, 2002 for committing the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Learned Special Judge-PMLA, Ranchi considering that there is no any connection of the offence of Suresh Prasad (O.P.No.3) and recovery of huge amount in the possession of Alok Ranjan (O.P. No.2).
6.18 Aforesaid order dated 12.08.2024 by which Special Judge -
Vigilance Court, West Singhbhum has dismissed the application filed under Section 44(1)(c) PMLA, 2002 for committing the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Judge-PMLA, Ranchi has been challenged herein by the petitioner Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi Zonal Office.
Argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner:
7. The ground has been taken that the impugned order is without application of judicious mind and against the provisions of PMLA, 2002, 6 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 and judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court in respect of interpreting Section 44(1)(c) of PMLA, 2002.
8. The ground has also been taken that the impugned order is in the teeth of the ruling passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement (2023) 4 SCC 357 wherein it has been observed that Special Court constituted under Section 43(1) of PMLA, 2002 for the purpose of trying an offence punishable under Section 4, but Section 43(2) of PMLA 2002 confers an additional jurisdiction upon such Special Court to try any offence with which the accused may be charged at the same trial and if an application is filed by the authority under Section 44(1)(c) of PMLA, 2002 then the court which took cognizance of the schedule offence should commit the case relating to scheduled offence to the Special Court which took cognizance of the complaint of money laundering.
9. Further it has been contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India 2022 SCC Online SC 929, has held that the offence of money laundering is an independent offence.
10. Further, in KA Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) 6 SCC 92 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that irrespective of where the FIR relating to the Scheduled Offence was filed and irrespective of which court took cognizance of the Scheduled Offence, the question of territorial jurisdiction of a Special Court to take cognizance of a complaint under PMLA should be decided with reference to the place/places where anyone of the activities/processes which constitute the offence under Section 3 took place.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has put reliance on the judgment rendered by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Ranjit G. Ranjit Singh Kothari v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4662, wherein Hon'ble Calcutta High Court relying upon the Judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement (Supra), KA Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement (Supra) and Vijay Madanalal v. UOI (Supra) has observed that that the word used 7 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 'shall' does not leave room for any other interpretation and held that it is clear that the legislative intention was that one and same court would try both the offences and the Special Designated Court being vested with the sessions power for dealing with offences under the PMLA would try such offence.
12. It has been submitted that the Special Judge -Vigilance Court, West Singhbhum, vide order dated 06.06.2022 framed charges against Respondent No.3 under Sections 7(a), 12 of PC Act and Section 201/120B of IPC and against Respondent No. 2 under Sections 201 and 120B of IPC. Thus, other than the offence of the Prevention of Corruption Act, both the Respondent were charged for the offence of criminal conspiracy, hence, the ratio of the Learned Special Judge - Vigilance Court, West Singhbhum that the cases are distinct from each other, is not correct.
13. Further, it has been submitted that the Special Judge - Vigilance Court, West Singhbhum failed to consider the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 44(1)(c) of PMLA, 2002 after due application of mind and in the interest of a speedy trial and interest of justice for proper appreciation of evidence. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the Judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in Upendra Rai v. CBI (2021) 281 DLT 89 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the Special Court under PMLA is competent to try both the offence that is under PMLA as well as predicate offence and application under Section 44(1)(c) of PMLA shall be filed, when necessary, in the interest of speedy trial or otherwise.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the aforesaid ground, has submitted that in interest of Justice the order impugned dated 12.08.2024 passed in Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2020 arising out of ACB Jamshedpur PS Case No.13 of 2019 by the learned Court, Special Judge, A.C.B., West Singhbhum at Chaibasa may be quashed and set aside and matter should be committed to learned Special Judge having its jurisdiction.
Argument of the learned counsel for the Respondents:
8 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024
15. The ground has been taken that after the trap of the O.P. No. 3, his house was searched from where a sum of Rs. 64,000/- and some articles were recovered. There had been two flats situated on the first floor of his house, which were rented out to one Junior Engineer Santosh Kumar and the other to Mr. Alok Ranjan, the flats were sealed, however, during the search of one of the flats, occupied by Mr. Alok Ranjan, a sum of Rs. 2.67 Crores cash has been recovered.
16. The Investigating Officer of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13/2019 had submitted chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 01/2020 dated 11.01.2020 as against the O.P. No. 3 and Alok Ranjan for the offence u/s 7(b) of the P.C. Act and u/s 201/120B of the IPC. In the chargesheet submitted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau it has been clearly held that the said amount of Rs. 2.67 Crores belongs to Alok Ranjan.
17. In the meanwhile, an account being taken into custody for demand of bribery, a departmental proceeding was also contemplated against the O.P. No. 3 in which memo of charge dated 07.01.2021 was framed for the allegation that the O.P. No. 3 has demanded illegal gratification and was caught red handed with an amount of Rs. 10,000/-.
18. The O.P. No. 3 contested the departmental proceeding and demolished the allegation with respect to demand of the alleged amount in as much as there had been no work pending of the complainant against him. The Enquiry Officer had minutely examined the entire allegations and in absence of proper verification of the complaint, the occasion and the demand not being proved, has found the charges to be not proved against the O.P. No. 3. The Department vide its letter dated 27.1.2022 has also exonerated the O.P. No. 3.
19. In view of the exoneration of the O.P. No. 3 in the departmental proceeding where threadbare and minute details have been examined, the criminal proceeding pending against the O.P. No. 3 for the same cause of action had no legs to stand.
9 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024
20. It would be evident from the chargesheet submitted by the Anti- Corruption Bureau as well as the memo of charge in the departmental proceeding that the same appertains to the allegation of bribery as against the O.P. No. 3. There had been no complaint in relation to any disproportionate income as against the O.P. No. 3.
21. In the meanwhile, Enforcement Case Information Report being RNSZO/16/2020 dated 17.9.2020 has been registered by the Enforcement Directorate relying upon the F.I.R. No. 13/2019, registered against the opposite parties. The Enforcement Directorate had investigated the matter and during its investigation, search was also made at the premises of the opposite parties and had been summoned by the Enforcement Directorate, wherein they appeared and had explained the entire circumstances.
22. Furthermore, the Enforcement Directorate has filed a supplementary prosecution complaint as against the said Virendra Kumar Ram, Alok Ranjan, Raj Kumari, Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal, Tara Chand, Niraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Bhatia, Harish Yadav, Hridayanand Tiwai, Alamgir Alam, Sanjiv Kumar Lal, Jahangir Alam (Annexure-9) upon which the learned Special Judge vide order dated 22.8.2023 has been pleased to take cognizance.
23. The adjudicating authority had also confirmed the provisional attachment order issued as against the said Virendra Kumar Ram and other accused persons.
24. The ground has also been taken that the O.P. No. 3is merely facing prosecution for demand of bribery and he is not named or complaint submitted against him by the Enforcement Directorate.
25. Further, upon submission of the chargesheet, charge has been framed by the learned Special Judge, Chaibasa in connection with A.C.B. Case No. 13/2019 and witnesses are being examined. 07 out of 09 witnesses had already been examined and the O.P. No. 3 in absence of evidence 10 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 leading to alleged demand being established is anticipating of his acquittal.
26. It is submitted that the Enforcement Directorate has also found no money trail as against the opposite party No.2 and only because Alok Ranjan figured as a co-accused in A.C.B. Case No. 13/2019 that in itself does not make out a case for commitment and transfer of the case to the court of learned Special Judge, PMLA.
27. The Enforcement Directorate in relation to recovery of huge amount of cash from the flat in occupation of Alok Ranjan has already investigated and shared the information to the authorities of the State Government under the provisions of Section 66(2) of the P.M.L.A. Act and in view of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the nature of information, it was incumbent upon the State Government to register an F.I.R. and proceed accordingly, however, for the inability on the part of the State Government in registering the F.I.R., the O.P. No. 3 cannot be made to suffer and the prosecution be able to fill up its lacunas in such a manner.
28. On the aforesaid score the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the submission of the petitioner is not fit to be accepted and impugned order requires no interference by this Court.
Analysis
29. In view of aforesaid submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the instant revision petition as well as the impugned order.
30. It is evident from the record that the ACB Jamshedpur registered an FIR No. 13/2019 dated 13.11.2019 registered u/s 7(a) of PC Act, 2018 against Shri Suresh OP. Prasad Verma (O.P. No. 3), then Jr. Engineer working in the Road Construction Department. One Vikas Kumar Sharma, filed a complaint before the ACB Jamshedpur, against Suresh Prasad Verma alleging therein that Suresh Prasad Verma had demanded a bribe amount of Rs. 28,000/- against clearing of some amount as per 11 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 the tender requirement. Subsequently, ACB laid a trap and caught Suresh Prasad Verma red-handed taking a partial bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the contractor and arrested him on 14.11.2019.
31. On the same day, ACB conducted a search operation on the residential premises of Smt. Pushpa Verma W/o Suresh Prasad Verma and seized cash of Rs. 63,870/- along with household jewellery, property and bank documents from the space owned by Smt. Pushpa Verma and it is noted that the rented premise on the first floor was sealed as the keys were not available.
32. Further, a search was also conducted on the next day i.e. on 15.11.2019 in the rented premises on the 1st floor of the same house which was in possession of O.P. No. 2 i.e. Alok Ranjan, and a huge cash amount of Rs. 2.67 Crore was seized from the almirah of one bedroom. Subsequently, Alok Ranjan was arrested by ACB Jamshedpur on the same day since he could not give any satisfactory answer regarding the seized cash found in his possession.
33. It is further evident that as per case diary Suresh Prasad Verma in his statement before ACB, claimed that the cash amount seized belonged to Verendra Kumar Ram, then Chief Engineer, Subernrekha Project and that his wife Rajkumari used to visit the rented-out premises of Alok Ranjan. Later, O.P. No. 2 i.e. Alok Ranjan in his written submission to the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Jamshedpur stated that the room was furnished by Sh. S.P. Verma including almirah from where the cash of Rs 2.67 crores was seized and he also claimed that the said cash amount seized belonged to S.P. Verma since he used to visit Alok's rented premises at times and used Almirah with the key in Verma's possession as and when he needed.
34. After investigation, ACB Jamshedpur filed a charge sheet No. 01/2020 OPs dated 11.01.2020 against both the O.Ps. i.e. Suresh Prasad Verma & Alok Ranjan under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
35. Accordingly, Special Judge-Vigilance Court, West Singhbhum took cognizance of the offence under Section 7(a) and Section 12 of the 12 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code against Suresh Prasad Verma(O.P.No.3) and Alok Ranjan (O.P.No.2) and charges were framed against O.P. No.3 under Section 7(a), 12 of PC Act and Section 201/120B of IPC and against O.P. No. 2 under Section 201 and 120B of IPC.
36. It is further evident that subsequently, an ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020 dated 17.09.2020 was recorded on the basis of the above-discussed FIR No. 13/19, dated 13.11.2019 registered u/s 7(a) of PC Act, 2018 by ACB, Jamshedpur and the Final Report No. 01/2020 dated 11.01.2020 submitted by ACB, Jamshedpur therein under Section 7(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 and 201, 120B of IPC against Suresh Prasad Verma and Alok Ranjan (opposite parties herein).
37. Further during the course of the investigation on Veerendra Kumar Ram and his close associates, several searches were conducted at various places across India. It was found that part of the proceeds of Crime acquired in the form of taking commission/bribe in lieu of allotment of tenders by Veerendra Kumar Ram, Jharkhand was getting routed by a Delhi-based CA Mukesh Mittal to the bank accounts of family members of Veerendra Kumar Ram with the help of bank accounts of Mukesh Mittal's employees/relatives.
38. It is evident that on the basis of the information shared under section 66(2) of PMLA, 2002 to Commissioner of police, Delhi, Police head quarter, on 03.03.2023 an FIR NO. 22/2023, was registered by Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Delhi against) Veerendra Kumar Ram, (ii). Mukesh Mittal, and (iii). Unknown others under section 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 473, 474, 476, 484 and 120 B of IPC, 1860, and section 7 and 5 of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 and the said FIR No. 22/2023 registered by EOW, Delhi was merged with the investigation of ECIR No. RNSZO/16/2020.
39. Subsequently, a Prosecution Complaint under Section 45 r/w Section 44 of PMLA, 2002 was filed before Learned Special Judge - PMLA, Ranchi on 21.04.2023 against the following accused persons (i) Veerendra 13 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 Kumar Ram (ii) Alok Ranjan (Respondent No. 2)(iii) Rajkumari (iv) Genda Ram, and the cognizance of the same was taken on 29.04.2023.
40. Thus, taking into consideration aforesaid nexus of the cases, Petitioner accordingly, filed an application under Section 44(1)(c) of PMLA, 2002 before the Learned Special Judge -Vigilance Court, West Singhbhum for committing the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Judge-PMLA, Ranchi.
41. In response to the aforesaid application, reply dated 06.07.2024 was filed by the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 objecting to the application under Section 44(1)(c) of PMLA,2002 stating that the same is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.
42. The Special Judge -Vigilance Court, West Singhbhum vide order dated 12.08.2024 has dismissed the application under Section 44(1)(c) PMLA, 2002 for committing the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Judge-PMLA, Ranchi considering that there is no any connection of the offence of Suresh Prasad (O.P.No.3) and recovery of huge amount in the possession of Alok Ranjan (O.P. No.2).
43. Aforesaid order dated 12.08.2024 by which Special Judge -Vigilance Court, West Singhbhum has dismissed the application filed under Section 44(1)(c) PMLA, 2002 for committing the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Judge-PMLA, Ranchi has been challenged herein by the petitioner Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi Zonal Office.
44. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order dated 12.08.2024 is contrary to the ruling passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) wherein it has been observed that if an application filed by the authority under Section 44(1)(c) of PMLA, 2002 then the court which took cognizance of the Schedule offence should commit the case relating to scheduled offence to the Special Court which took cognizance of the complaint of money laundering.
14 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024
45. Per contra the learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that it would be evident from the chargesheet submitted by the Anti- Corruption Bureau as well as the memo of charge in the departmental proceeding that the same appertains to the allegation of bribery as against the opposite parties and there had been no complaint in relation to any disproportionate income as against the O.P. No. 3.
46. Before adverting to the merit of the instant case, it needs to refer herein that Money laundering is a process of projection of tainted money as an untainted one. It is the process by which the Proceeds of Crime are ploughed into the financial system to disguise their illegal origins and make them look like legitimate money. Money laundering can be linked to any crime that generates significant proceeds such as corruption. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as PMLA) is India's way of complying with its international commitments towards this growing menace. It was designed to be overall special legislation dealing with every aspect of the offence of money laundering.
47. The Offence of money laundering is defined u/s 3 of PMLA, 2002 as follows:
Section 3: whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money laundering.
48. At this juncture, it is imperative to know what Proceeds of Crime are and same is defined u/s 2(u) PMLA as follows:
Section 2(u): "Proceeds of Crime" means any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the county, then the property equivalent in value held within the country.
49. In a nutshell, the offence of money laundering, as is prescribed u/s 3, is committed in two parts i.e. first, when one acquires Proceeds of Crime via the commission of Predicate Offence and second, when said Proceeds of Crime are laundered. scheme of the act is to tackle the 15 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 menace of money laundering, prosecution of offenders and confiscation of Proceeds of Crime.
50. It is, thus, evident that Act 2002 was enacted in order to answer the urgent requirement to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
51. It is evident from the Section 2 (1)(u) that "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad.
52. In the explanation it has been referred that for removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. The aforesaid explanation has been inserted in the statute book by way of Act 23 of 2019.
53. It is, thus, evident that the reason for giving explanation under Section 2(1)(u) is by way of clarification to the effect that whether as per the substantive provision of Section 2(1)(u), the property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country but by way of explanation the proceeds of crime has been given broader implication by including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.
16 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024
54. The "property" has been defined under Section 2(1)(v) which means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located.
55. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x) which means schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The "scheduled offence" has been defined under Section 2(1)(y) which reads as under
"2(y) "scheduled offence" means-- (i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule."
56. It is evident that the "scheduled offence" means the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule.
57. It is evident that "offence of money-laundering" means whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.
58. It is further evident that the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.
59. The expression "money-laundering", ordinarily, means the process or activity of placement, layering and finally integrating the tainted property in the formal economy of the country. However, Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence, as defined, captures every process and activity in dealing with the proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly, and not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property 17 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 in the formal economy to constitute an act of money-laundering. This is amply clear from the original provision, which has been further clarified by insertion of Explanation vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, Section 3, as amended. The act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property presupposes that the person is in possession of or is using the same (proceeds of crime), also an independent activity constituting offence of money-laundering. In other words, it is not open to read the different activities conjunctively because of the word "and". If that interpretation is accepted, the effectiveness of Section 3 of the 2002 Act can be easily frustrated by the simple device of one person possessing proceeds of crime and his accomplice would indulge in projecting or claiming it to be untainted property so that neither is covered under Section 3 of the 2002 Act. Thus, a person who is as longer as in possession and enjoyment of Proceeds of Crime, PMLA can certainly be invoked.
60. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 alongwith interpretation of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein the Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the issue by taking into consideration the object and intent of the Act, 2002.
61. The interpretation of the condition which is to be fulfilled while alleging the person involved in the predicate offence has been made as would appear from paragraph 265, which reads as under:
"265. To put it differently, the section as it stood prior to 2019 had itself incorporated the expression "including", which is indicative of reference made to the different process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the principal provision (as also the Explanation) predicates that if a person is found to be directly or indirectly involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime must be held guilty of offence of money laundering. If the interpretation set forth by the petitioners was to be accepted, it would follow that it is only upon projecting or claiming the property in question as untainted property, the offence would be complete. This would undermine the efficacy of the legislative intent behind Section 3 of the Act and also will be in disregard of the view expressed by the FATF in connection with the occurrence of the word "and" preceding the expression "projecting or claiming" therein. This Court in Pratap 18 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 Singh v. State of Jharkhand, enunciated that the international treaties, covenants and conventions although may not be a part of municipal law, the same be referred to and followed by the Courts having regard to the fact that India is a party to the said treaties. This Court went on to observe that the Constitution of India and other ongoing statutes have been read consistently with the rules of international law. It is also observed that the Constitution of India and the enactments made by Parliament must necessarily be understood in the context of the present-day scenario and having regard to the international treaties and convention as our constitution takes note of the institutions of the world community which had been created. In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, the Court observed that domestic Courts are under an obligation to give due regard to the international conventions and norms for construing the domestic laws, more so, when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in domestic law. This view has been restated in Githa Hariharan, as also in People's Union for Civil Liberties, and National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India."
62. The predicate offence has been considered in the aforesaid judgment wherein by taking into consideration the explanation as inserted by way of Act 23 of 2019 under the definition of the "proceeds of crime" as contained under Section 2(1)(u), whereby and whereunder, it has been clarified for the purpose of removal of doubts that, the "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence, meaning thereby, the words "any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence" will come under the fold of the proceeds of crime.
63. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) as under
paragraph 284, it has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of "proceeds of crime". Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until 19 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process.
64. In the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (supra), it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the offence of money laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being quoted as under:
"42. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form -- be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so.
Thus, involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute offence of money laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence -- except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime."
65. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court is now adverting to the merit of the instant case. It is evident from the contention of the learned counsel for the parties that the issue which have been canvassed by the learned advocate for either party revolves around the certainty of the Special Designated Court to try the scheduled offence.
66. In the aforesaid context it will be purposeful to discuss section 43 and 44 of the Act 2002, which is being quoted as under:
43. Special Courts.--(1) The Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, shall, for trial of offence punishable under Section 4, by notification, designate, one or more Courts of Session as Special Court or Special Courts for such area or areas or for such case or class or group of cases as may be specified in the notification.
Explanation.--In this sub-section, "High Court" means the High Court of the State in which a Sessions Court designated as Special Court was functioning immediately before such designation.
(2) While trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court shall also try an offence, other than an offence referred to in sub-section (1), 20 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial.
"44.Offences triable by Special Courts.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974),--
[(a) an offence punishable under Section 4 and any scheduled offence connected to the offence under that section shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed:
Provided that the Special Court, trying a scheduled offence before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to try such scheduled offence; or]
(b) a Special Court may, (∗ ∗ ∗) upon a complaint made by an authority authorised in this behalf under this Act take (cognizance of offence under Section 3, without the accused being committed to it for trial).
[Provided that after conclusion of investigation, if no offence of money laundering is made out requiring filing of such complaint, the said authority shall submit a closure report before the Special Court; or] [(c) 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 authorised to file a complaint under this Act, commit the case relating to the scheduled 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. Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that,--
(i) the jurisdiction of the Special Court while dealing with the offence under this Act, during investigation, enquiry or trial under this Act, shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offence, and the trial of both sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as joint trial; and
(ii) the complaint shall be deemed to include any subsequent complaint in respect of further investigation that may be conducted to bring any further evidence, oral or documentary, against any accused person involved in respect of the offence, for which complaint has already been filed, whether named in the original complaint or not.]"
67. It is evident from the core of Section 43 of the Act 2002, that The Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, shall, for trial of offence punishable under Section 4, by notification, designate, one or more Courts of Session as Special Court or Special Courts for such area or areas or for such case or class or group of cases as may be specified in the notification.
68. Further from Section 44 of the Act 2002 it is evident that an offence punishable under Section 4 and any scheduled offence connected to the offence under that section shall be triable by the Special Court
21 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed and a Special Court may, upon a complaint made by an authority authorised in this behalf under this Act take cognizance of offence under Section 3, without the accused being committed to it for trial.
69. Further it has been stipulated in Section 44(1) (c) of the Act 2002 that 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 authorised to file a complaint under this Act, commit the case relating to the scheduled 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.
70. Thus, a conjoint reading of Sections 44(1)(a) and 44(1)(c) along with explanations (i) to the Section 44(1) makes it abundantly clear that the legislative intention was that one and same court would try both the offences and the Special Designated Court being vested with the sessions power for dealing with offences under the PMLA would try such offence. Further the subject-matter of transactions being same along with the factual foundation and the outcome in trial of the scheduled offence having an impact in respect of the offences relating to money laundering, a harmonious construction of the provisions would lead to one and only conclusion that the Special Designated Court for trying offences under the PMLA would be the court which would try the scheduled offences.
71. It needs to refer herein that PMLA being a special statute, is expected to be a complete code in itself. However, it is one which incorporates provisions of CrPC as well for proper execution of provisions given under the act. Section 65 is one which stipulates that provisions of CrPC will be applicable so long as they aren't inconsistent with the provisions of PMLA. Section 65 reads as follows:
Section 65: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply: the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation, investigation, prosecution and all other proceedings under this Act.
22 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024
72. Section 65 PMLA provides that provisions of CrPC will be applicable so long as they are not inconsistent with PMLA and section 71 provides that in the event of any inconsistency with any other law for the time being in force, PMLA shall prevail.
73. Further the learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 has contended that he is facing prosecution for demand of bribery and he is not named or complaint submitted against him by the Enforcement Directorate.
74. The question that whether mere receipt of bribe money is an act of money laundering or not is elaborately considered by the Apex Court of India in the case of Y. Balaji v. Karthik Dasari as follows:--
"99. It is this bribe money that constitutes the 'proceeds of crime' within the meaning of section 2(1)(u) of PMLA. It is no rocket science to know that a public servant receiving illegal gratification is in possession of proceeds of crime. The argument that the mere generation of proceeds of crime is not sufficient to constitute the offence of money-laundering, is actually preposterous. As we could see from Section 3, there are six processes or activities identified therein. They are, (i) concealment; (ii) possession; (iii) acquisition;
(iv) use; (v) projecting as untainted property; and (vi) claiming as untainted property. If a person takes a bribe, he acquires proceeds of crime. So, the activity of "acquisition" takes place. Even if he does not retain it but "uses" it, he will be guilty of the offence of money-
laundering, since "use" is one of the six activities mentioned in Section 3".
75. At this juncture, it needs to refer herein that as per Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) the condition precedent for the existence of proceeds of crime is the existence of a scheduled offence. It has been given therein that on plain reading of Section 3 of the Act, 2002, an offence under Section 3 can be committed after a scheduled offence is committed. By giving an example, it has been clarified that if a person who is unconnected with the scheduled offence, knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime or knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime, in that case, he can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA.
76. It is settled position of law that Section 3 of the PMLA captures every process and activity, direct or indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy. The expression "and" occurring in Section 3 has to be construed as "or" so as to include "every" process 23 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 or activity indulged into by anyone. Projecting or claiming the property as untainted property would constitute an offence of money laundering on its own, being an independent process or activity.
77. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties No.3 that since he is not the named accused in the complaint filed by the petitioner i.e. Enforcement directorate, therefore trial of his case cannot not be made by the Special Court PMLA, Ranchi, is not tenable reason being that this Court cannot ascertain the involvement of the said opposite party in alleged crime rather at this juncture this Court has concern only with the trial the case by the special Court designated by virtue of the Section 43 of the Act 2002. Further as per the legal purport of the section 44(1) (c) of the Act 2002 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 authorised to file a complaint under this Act, commit the case relating to the scheduled 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, therefore the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel is also not sustainable on the legal aspect also.
78. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the purport of the Section 44 (1) (c) of the Act 2002 in the case of Rana Ayyub v. Enforcement Directorate (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that Section 44(1) Expln. (i) clarifies that the trial of scheduled offence and offence of money-laundering by the same court cannot be construed as joint trial. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being quoted as under:
"26. What is dealt with by Section 44(1)(a) is a situation where there is no complication. Section 44(1)(a) lays down the most fundamental rule relating to territorial jurisdiction, by providing that an offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA and any scheduled offence connected to the same shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed. It is relevant to note that Section 44(1)(a) uses the expression 'offence' in three places in contradistinction to the expression 'scheduled offence' used only once. This usage is not without significance. In all three places where the word 'offence' alone is used, it connotes the offence of money laundering. The place where the expression 'scheduled offence' is 24 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 used, it connotes the predicate offence. By prescribing that an offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA and any scheduled offence connected to the same shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which 'the offence' has been committed, Section 44(1)(a) makes it crystal clear that it is the Special Court constituted under Section 43(1), which will be empowered to try even the scheduled offence connected to the same.
27. After mapping out/laying down such a general but fundamental rule, the Act then proceeds to deal with a more complicated situation in Section 44(1)(c). The question as to what happens if the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence is other than the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the offence of money laundering, is what is sought to be answered by clause (c) of sub- section (1) of Section 44. If the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence is different from the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the offence of money laundering, then the authority authorised to file a complaint under the PMLA should make an application to the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence. On the application so filed, the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence, should commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the complaint of money laundering.
28. Therefore, it is clear that the trial of the scheduled offence should take place in the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the offence of money laundering. In other words, the trial of the scheduled offence, insofar as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, should follow the trial of the offence of money laundering and not vice versa.
29. Since the Act contemplates the trial of the scheduled offence and the trial of the offence of money laundering to take place only before the Special Court constituted under Section 43(1), a doubt is prone to arise as to whether all the offences are to be tried together. This doubt is sought to be removed by Explanation (i) to Section 44(1). Explanation (i) clarifies that the trial of both sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as joint trial.
30. A careful dissection of clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 44 shows that they confer primacy upon the Special Court constituted under Section 43(1) of the PMLA. These two clauses contain two rules, namely: (i) that the offence punishable under the PMLA as well as a scheduled offence connected to the same shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence of money laundering has been committed; and (ii) that if cognizance has been taken by one court, in respect of the scheduled offence and cognizance has been taken in respect of the offence of money laundering by the Special Court, the court trying the scheduled offence shall commit it to the Special Court trying the offence of money laundering.
∗∗∗
39. Once this combined scheme is understood, it will be clear that in view of the specific mandate of clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 44, it is the Special Court constituted under the PMLA that would have jurisdiction to try even the scheduled offence. Even if the scheduled offence is taken cognizance of by any other court, that court shall commit the same, on an application by the authority concerned, to the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the offence of money laundering. This answers the first question posed before us."
25 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024
79. Thus, from the aforesaid Judgment it is evident that Section 44(1)(a) lays down the most fundamental rule relating to territorial jurisdiction, by providing that an offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA and any scheduled offence connected to the same shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KA Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) while taking note of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rana Ayyub (supra) has observed that irrespective of where the FIR relating to the Scheduled Offence was filed and irrespective of which court took cognizance of the Scheduled Offence, the question of territorial jurisdiction of a Special Court to take cognizance of a compliant under PMLA should be decided with reference to the place/places where any one of the activities/processes which constitute the offence under Section 3 took place. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being quoted as under:
"9. While dealing with the Question 1, in Rana Ayyub [Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) 4 SCC 357 : (2023) 2 SCC (Cri) 293] , this Court considered the interplay between Sections 43 and 44 of PMLA on the one hand and the provisions of Sections 177 to 184 of the Code on the other hand and held in para 39 as follows : (SCC p. 370) "39. Once this combined scheme is understood, it will be clear that in view of the specific mandate of clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 44, it is the Special Court constituted under the PMLA that would have jurisdiction to try even the Scheduled Offence. Even if the Scheduled Offence is taken cognizance of by any other Court, that Court shall commit the same, on an application by the authority concerned, to the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the offence of money-laundering. This answers the first question posed before us."
10. Adverting to the second question, this Court held in paras 40 to 42 as follows : (Rana Ayyub case [Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) 4 SCC 357 : (2023) 2 SCC (Cri) 293] , SCC pp. 370-71) "40. Coming to the second question arising for our consideration, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 44 leaves no semblance of any doubt that the offence of money-laundering is triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence of money- laundering has been committed. To find out the area in which the offence of money-laundering has been committed, we may have to go back to the definition in Section 3 of the PMLA.
41. As we have pointed out earlier, the involvement of a person in any one or more of certain processes or activities connected with the 26 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024 proceeds of crime, constitutes the offence of money-laundering. These processes or activities include : (i) concealment; (ii) possession; (iii) acquisition; (iv) use; (v) projecting as untainted property; or (vi) claiming as untainted property.
42. In other words, a person may (i) acquire proceeds of crime in one place, (ii) keep the same in his possession in another place, (iii) conceal the same in a third place, and (iv) use the same in a fourth place. The area in which each one of these places is located, will be the area in which the offence of money-laundering has been committed. To put it differently, the area in which the place of acquisition of the proceeds of crime is located or the place of keeping it in possession is located or the place in which it is concealed is located or the place in which it is used is located, will be the area in which the offence has been committed."
11. Therefore, irrespective of where the FIR relating to the Scheduled Offence was filed and irrespective of which court took cognizance of the Scheduled Offence, the question of territorial jurisdiction of a Special Court to take cognizance of a compliant under PMLA should be decided with reference to the place/places where anyone (sic any one) of the activities/processes which constitute the offence under Section 3 took place.---"
80. Further in the case of Rana Ayyub (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that if the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence is different from the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the offence of money laundering, then the authority authorised to file a complaint under the PMLA should make an application to the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence. On the application so filed, the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence, should commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the complaint of money laundering.
81. It is relevant to note that Section 44(1)(a) uses the expression 'offence' in three places in contradistinction to the expression 'scheduled offence' used only once. This usage is not without significance. In all three places where the word 'offence' alone is used, it connotes the offence of money laundering. The place where the expression 'scheduled offence' is used, it connotes the predicate offence. By prescribing that an offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA and any scheduled offence connected to the same shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which 'the offence' has been committed, Section 44(1)(a) makes it crystal clear that it is the Special Court constituted under Section 43(1), which will be empowered to try even the scheduled offence connected to the same.
27 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024
82. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rana Ayyub (supra) has categorically observed that Once this combined scheme of the section 44(1)(a) and Section 44(1)(c)is understood, it will be clear that in view of the specific mandate of clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 44, it is the Special Court constituted under the PMLA that would have jurisdiction to try even the scheduled offence.
83. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the learned court while passing the order on the application filed by the prosecuting agency, Enforcement Directorate has not taken into consideration the statutory command as provided under Section 44(1)(c) of the Act, 2002 as also having been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rana Ayyub (supra) therefore, the order impugned needs interference.
84. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 passed in Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2020 arising out of ACB Jamshedpur PS Case No.13 of 2019 by the learned Court, Special Judge, A.C.B., West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, is quashed and set aside.
85. In consequence thereof, the case is to be tried by the learned Special Judge having its jurisdiction.
86. Let the entire record be send to the learned Special Judge forthwith.
87. In the result, the instant criminal revision stands allowed, as such, disposed of.
88. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh/-
A.F.R. 28 Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2024