Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ayesha Sheriff vs Deputy Director on 13 April, 2017
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.57334-338/2014[GM-RES]
C/W
WRIT PETITION Nos. 6123/2014 , 56157/2014 , 56158/2014 ,
895-897/2015, 10795-97/2015, 12820-21/2015,
13154-13155/2015, 15258/2015, 34912-913/2015,(GM-RES),
IN WP N0s.57334-338/2014
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Ayesha Sheriff,
W/o. Shri. S. S. Sheriff,
Aged 42 Years,
No.495, I Main Road,
Ramakrishna Hegde Nagar,
Thannisandra,
Bengaluru-560 045.
2. Smt. Rahmath Khathoon,
D/o. Late Fakuruddin Sab,
Aged 45 Years,
No.628, I Main Road,
Ramakrishna Hegde Nagar,
Thannisandra,
Bengaluru-560 045.
-2-
3. Smt. Zianabi,
W/o. Late Sheik Fakuruddin Sab,
Aged 87 Years,
No.504, I Main Road,
Ramakrishna Hegde Nagar,
Thannisandra,
Bengaluru-560 045.
4. Sri. Mohammed Azam
S/o. Late Sheik Fakuruddin Sab,
Aged 52 Years,
No.495, I Main Road,
Ramakrishna Hegde Nagar,
Thannisandra,
Bengaluru-560 045.
5. Smt. Shataj,
W/o. Sabbir Khan,
Aged 56 Years,
No.629, I Main Road,
Ramakrishna Hegde Nagar,
Thannisandra,
Bengaluru-560 045.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. Kiran S Javali and Sri. Chandrashekara K., Advocates)
AND:
Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
3rd floor, "B" Block,
BMTC Building Shantinagar,
K.H. Road,
Bangalore-560 027. ... Respondent
-3-
(By Sri. S. Mahesh, Advocate)
These Writ Petition are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the proceedings
dated 27.6.2014 vide Ann-B, dated 08.05.2014 vide Ann-C,
dated 27.6.2014 vide Ann-D, dated 08.05.2014 vide Ann-E, and
dated 8.5.2014 vide Ann-F initiated by the respondent and all
further proceedings thereto as Illegal and abinitio Void etc.,
* *** *
IN WP NO.6123/2014
BETWEEN:
Mrs. C. P. Bhagyalakshmi,
W/o. H. R. Ramesh,
Aged about 42 years,
Hoodike Hosahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Channapatna Taluk,
Ramanagara District .
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Kiran S Javali and Sri. Chandrashekara K., Advocates)
AND:
Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
3rd floor, "B" Block,
BMTC Building Shantinagar,
K.H. Road,
Bangalore-560 027. ... Respondent
(By Sri. S. Mahesh, Advocate)
-4-
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash summons
F.No.ECIR/10/BZ/2012/DD-SD dated 06.12.2013 Vide
Annexure-A passed by the R-1 and all further proceedings
thereto as illegal and abinitio void etc.,
* *** *
IN WP NO.56157/2014
BETWEEN:
Mrs. C. P. Pushpa,
W/o. P. Mahadevaiah,
No.6, 80 Feet Road,
II Phase, Girinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 085.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Chandrashekara K., Advocate)
AND:
Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Government of India,
3rd floor, "B" Block,
BMTC Building Shantinagar,
K.H. Road,
Bangalore-560 027. ... Respondent
(By Sri. S. Mahesh, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash summons dated
-5-
24.11.14, vide Annexure-A, passed by the R1 & all further
proceedings thereto as illegal & abinitio void. Direct the
respondent to forbear from causing investigation under the
provisions of the PMLA Act. Grant Interim order to restrain the
respondent from acting in any manner pursuance to the
summons dated 24.11.14, vide Annexure-A etc.,
* *** *
IN WP NO.56158/2014
BETWEEN:
Shri. C. P. Yogeshwara,
S/o. Puttamadegowda,
Aged about 49 years,
Managing Director,
Megacity (Bangalore) Developers & Builders Ltd.,
No.464, 1st "G" Cross,
2nd Phase, BSK 3rd Stage,
Bangalore-560 085. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Chandrashekara K., Advocate)
AND:
Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
By Union of India,
3rd floor, "B" Block,
BMTC Building Shantinagar,
K.H. Road,
Bangalore-560 027. ... Respondent
(By Sri. S. Mahesh, Advocate)
-6-
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash summons dated
24.11.14, vide Ann-A, passed by the R1 & all further
proceedings thereto as illegal & Abinitio void. Direct the
respondent to forbear from causing investigation under the
provisions of the PMLA Act. Grant interim order to restrain the
respondent from acting in any manner pursuance to the
summons dated 24.11.14, vide Annexure-A.
* *** *
IN WP Nos.895-897/2015
BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Tholasirama,
S/o. Late Bodaka Naik,
Aged 53 years,
Residing at K.P. Agrahara,
Vijayanagara,
Bengaluru - 560 023.
2. Smt. H. Sharda,
W/o. Sri. Tholasiam,
Aged 44 Years,
Residing at K.P. Agrahara,
Vijayanagara,
Bengaluru-560 023.
3. Sri. T. Sanjay,
S/o. Sri. Tholasiram,
Aged 26 Years,
Residing at K.P. Agrahara,
Vijayanagara,
Bengaluru-560 023. ... Petitioners
-7-
(By Sri. Kiran S Javali and Sri. Chandrashekara K., Advocates)
AND
1. Registrar,
Adjudicating Authority,
Prevention of Money Laundering,
4th floor, Room No.20,
Jeevan Deep Building,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Bangalore Zonal Office,
3rd floor, "B" Block,
BMTC-TTMC Building,
Shantinagar, K.H. Road,
Bangalore-560 027. ... Respondents
(By Sri. S. Mahesh, Advocate for R.2)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the all 3 notices
vide Annexure-A, A1 and A2, O.C. No.374/2014 dated
07.11.2014, by the R-1 & as illegal & Abinitio void etc.,
* *** *
IN WP Nos.10795-97/2015
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. M.D. Krishnegowda,
S/o. Late Dyape Gowda,
Aged 61 years,
-8-
R/at No.1662, "Chamundeshwari Krupa"
Gokula , 32nd Cross, 18th Main,
2nd Stage, Banashankari,
Bengaluru-560 070.
2. Smt. L. Usha,
Wo. M.D. Krishnegowda,
Aged 49 Years,
R/at No.1662, "Chamundeshwari Krupa"
Gokula , 32nd Cross, 18th Main,
2nd Stage, Banashankari,
Bengaluru-560 070.
3. Sri. K. Yeshwant,
S/o. M.D. Krishnegowda
Aged 27 Years,
R/at No.1662, "Chamundeshwari Krupa"
Gokula , 32nd Cross, 18th Main,
2nd Stage, Banashankari,
Bengaluru-560 070.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. Kiran S Javali and Sri. Chandrashekara K., Advocates)
AND:
1. The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Bangalore Zonal Office,
3rd floor, 'B' Block BMTC-TTMC Building,
K.H. Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027
2. Registrar,
Adjudicating Authority,
-9-
Prevention of Money Laundering,
4th floor, Room No.20,
Jeevan Deep Building,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri. S. Mahesh, Advocate for R.1,
Sri. Unnikrishnan M., CGC for R.2)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the provisional
attachment Order dated 19.12.2014, Vide Annexure - B, as
illegal and abinitio void etc.,
* *** *
IN WP Nos.12820-21/2015
BETWEEN:
1. S. Premalatha,
W/o. P. Shanthakumar,
Aged about 54 Years
R/at. No.401-A
Sapthagiri Maharshi Residency,
10th Cross, Nagavarapalya,
C. V. Ramannagar,
Bangalore-560 093.
2. S. Jai Bharath,
S/o. P. Shanthakumar,
Aged about 28 Years,
R/at. No.401-A,
Sapthagiri Maharshi Residency,
10th Cross, Nagavarapalya,
C V Ramannagar,
-10-
Bangalore-560 093.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. Deepak J., Advocate)
AND:
The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Bangalore,
3rd floor, 'B' Block BMTC-TTMC Building,
K.H. Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
... Respondent
(By Sri. S. Mahesh, Advocate)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash proceedings both
dated 04.02.2015 Annexure-B & C initiated by the respondent
and all further proceedings there to as illegal and abinitio void
etc.,
* *** *
IN WP Nos.13154-13155/2015
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. T. N. Bettaswamiah,
S/o. Masthaiah,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at. No.154, 4th Cross,
Sai Enclave, J. P. Nagar,
8th Phase,
Bengaluru-560 076.
-11-
2. Smt. M. Sukanya,
W/o. T. N. Bettaswamiah,
Aged about 50 Years,
R/at No.154, 4th Cross,
Sai Enclave, J P Nagar,
8th Phase,
Bengaluru-560 076 ... Petitioners
(By Sri. Chandrashekara K., Advocate)
AND:
The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Bangalore Zonal Office,
3rd floor, 'B' Block BMTC-TTMC Building,
K.H. Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
... Respondent
(By Sri. S. Mahesh, Advocate)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the provisional
attachment order No.3/2015 passed by the respondent dated
10.03.2015 [Annexure-A] as illegal and Abinitio void etc.,
* *** *
IN WP NO.15258/2015
BETWEEN:
P. Shanthakumar,
S/. Ponnaswamy
Aged about 59 years,
-12-
R/at No.401-A,
Sapthagiri Maharshi Residency,
10th Cross, Nagavarapalya,
C V Ramannagar,
Bangalore-560 093. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Deepak J., Advocate)
AND:
The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Bangalore,
3rd floor, 'B' Block BMTC-TTMC Building,
K.H. Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
... Respondent
(By Sri. S. Mahesh, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the proceedings dated
02.02.2015 vide (Annexure-B) initiated by the respondent and
all further proceedings there to as illegal and Abinitio void etc.,
* *** *
IN WP Nos.34912-913/2015
BETWEEN:
H. D. Balakrishnegowda,
S/o. H. D. Devegowda,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at No.12, 80 feet road,
Padmanabhanagar,
-13-
Bangalore-560 070. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Kiran S Javali and Sri. Chandrashekara K, Advocates)
AND:
The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
3rd floor, 'B' Block BMTC Building,
K.H. Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
... Respondent
(By Sri. S. S. Hiremath, Advocate)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash Communication
dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure-A) and order dated 03.08.2015
(Annexure-B), passed by the R.1 as illegal and Abinitio void
etc.,
* *** *
These Writ Petitions coming on for Further Hearing, this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Shri Kiran S Javali, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, who leads the arguments in these cases. -14-
2. The cases give rise to a similar question of law which has been addressed by a Division Bench of this court in WP 5962/2016, in the case of Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited vs. Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, disposed of on 13.3.2017. The question considered was whether the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners therein were earlier to the inclusion of several offences under several enactments in the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2009 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PML Act', for brevity) and as such, they would have no application to the alleged offences committed earlier to the amendment and that the Enforcement Case Information Report and the Order of Attachment were hence without jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed. Similar is the question in this batch of petitions.
3. It is pointed out that the offences alleged against these petitioners were not included in the Schedule to the PML Act prior to 1.6.2009 and that it is only by virtue of the amendment to the PML Act with effect from 1.7.2009, vide Act No.21/2009 -15- that the offences alleged against the petitioners under the particular Acts were incorporated in the Schedule. Therefore, insofar as the question as to whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioners pursuant to the amendment in respect of offences allegedly committed prior to the amendment could be taken forward under the provisions of the PML Act is concerned, the Division Bench has opined in the negative. Since the offences were included in the Schedule only with effect from 1.6.2009, it was held that the Enforcement Directorate could not have invoked the provisions of the Act with retrospective effect and the petitioners cannot be tried and punished for the offences under the PML Act, as the offences were not inserted in the schedule of offences under the PML Act. It is also stated that this would deny the petitioners the protection provided under clause (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and that the said Article 20(1) prohibits the conviction of a person or his being subjected to penalty for -16- ex-post facto laws. Consequently, the order of attachment was held liable to be set aside.
It is contended that the said order would, with equal force, apply to the present petitions and therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be allowed.
4. The learned Counsel Shri S.Mahesh, appearing for the respondents would seek to distinguish the said decision by reference to a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of B.Rama Raju vs. Union of India, (2011)164 CompCa149 (AP), which was dealing with the very Act. Since the Division Bench of this Court was aware of the aforesaid judgment, as it was available as on the date of the order, the same being sought to be distinguished, would require this court to disagree with the order passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and therefore, this court refrains from doing so. On the other hand, the reasoning of the Division Bench of this Court appeals to this Bench.
-17-
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The impugned proceedings are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv