Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Jatinder Pal Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 November, 2022

Author: Mukta Gupta

Bench: Mukta Gupta

                      $~6
                      *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +     W.P.(CRL) 304/2022

                            JATINDER PAL SINGH                                 ..... Petitioner
                                     Represented by:       Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate
                                                           alongwith Mr. H.S. Bhullar and Mr.
                                                           Indronil Mohan, Advs.
                                               versus

                            UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              ..... Respondents
                                     Represented by:       Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC
                                                           for R-1/UOI.
                                                           Ms. Rupali Bandopadhya, ASC
                                                           alongwith Mr. Abhijeet Kumar,
                                                           Adv. for the State.
                                                           Inspector Chetan Mandia from
                                                           EOW.
                                                           Mr. Zoheb Hossain and Mr. Vivek
                                                           Gurnani, Adv. for R-2/Directorate
                                                           of Enforcement.
                            CORAM:
                            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
                            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE POONAM A. BAMBA
                                          ORDER

% 29.11.2022

1. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.', though the prayers (A) & (B) of the writ petition have become infructuous, however, prayer made in para (C) was for declaration of Section 66(2) of PMLA as prospective in nature with effect from 19th April 2018 and retrospective application of Section 66(2) as void; which issue is pending consideration before a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.12.2022 11:03:11 Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus, writ petition be adjourned sine die awaiting the said decision.

2. The concern of the petitioner at the moment is with regard to prayer (D) in the petition which reads as under:

"D. Consequent to the prayer mentioned above issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction for declaring the proceeding emanating from ECIR bearing no.ECIR/55/dz/2010//dd(sc)/vm (Annexure B) and Criminal Complaint Case No. 55/2019 (Annexure G) filed before the Ld. Special Judge, (CBI-IV), Rouse Avenue District Court as bad in law and void ab initio."

3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that ECIR bearing No.ECIR/55/dz/2010//dd(sc)/vm was recorded pursuant to FIR registered by the CBI for offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 11, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 120B IPC. A petition against the order framing charge was filed by the petitioner before this Court wherein the petitioner has been discharged and thus, the predicate offence does not survive. He has relied upon the decision in Vijay Madanlal case (supra), wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the accused is either acquitted, discharged or the complaint quashed in respect of predicate offence, the proceedings under PMLA cannot continue.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the order dated 13th September 2022 passed by the learned Special Judge wherein it was stated on behalf of the appellant that the present case was covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal case (supra) and the contention of the respondent before Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.12.2022 11:03:11 learned Special Judge was that in the present writ petition, appellant has taken similar prayer for quashing of the present ECIR before this Court, thus the learned Special Judge could not proceed with the issue.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on instructions fairly states that since the proceedings in this writ petition are being adjourned pending decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to prayer (C) of this writ petition and no effective order has been passed as to prayer (D) in this case, the same can be dealt with by the learned Trial Court. It is thus clarified that the learned Trial Court will pass a decision in respect of the discharge sought in the proceedings under ECIR/55/dz/2010//dd(sc)/vm, uninfluenced by the pendency of the present writ petition on its own merit. It is further clarified that the contentions available to both the parties are open before the learned Special Judge.

6. The writ petition is adjourned sine die in view of pendency of the legal issue viz-a-viz Section 66(2) of PMLA being applicable retrospectively/prospectively with liberty to the parties to file appropriate application to list the petition as required.

7. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

POONAM A. BAMBA, J.

NOVEMBER 29, 2022/kct Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.12.2022 11:03:11