Chattisgarh High Court
Alok Kumar Agrawal And Anr vs Enforcement Directorate on 11 January, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
(Proceedings through Video Conferencing)
CRR No. 1129 of 2018
1. Alok Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Radhe Shyam Agrawal Aged
About 48 Years Assistant Engineer, (Under Suspension), office
Of Chief Engineer Mahanadi Project Raipur Chhattisgarh,
2. Smt. Alka Agrawal W/o Shri Alok Agrawal Aged About 42 Years
R/o Opposite To Tejaswani Girls Hostel Parijat Extension Nehru
Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
Enforcement Directorate Government Of India Through Shri
Shreekant Purohit Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate
Raipur Subzonal Office, A-1 Block Pujari Complex New Dhamtari
Road Pachpedi Naka Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Petitioners : Shri K. Rohan, Advocate on behalf of Shri Amrito Das, Advocate.
For Respondent : Dr. Saurabh Ku. Pandey with Shri Anil S. Pandey, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Gautam Chourdiya, J Order On Board 11/01/2022 Challenge in this revision petition filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC is to the order dated 16.7.2018 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.1/2018 registering complaint and taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the respondents and other accused persons.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Annexure A/2 i.e. Notification issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi dated 5th February, 2016, the IV Additional District Judge, Raipur has been appointed as a designated Court under Section 43 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. As per said notification, 4th ADJ is having jurisdiction in civil nature of cases and he has no jurisdiction to try the cases of criminal nature. Therefore, in view of Section 9 of CrPC and the above notification, cognizance taken by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur is without jurisdiction and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Naik and others reported in 1986 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 510.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in this case, the said issue of jurisdiction has been raised by the petitioners for the first time before this Court in revision and it was not raised before the trial Court. Secondly, as per Articles 233 and 236 of Constitution of India which relate to appointment of district judges and interpretation, "district judge" includes additional district judge also. As per Annexure A/2 Notification, it is true that IV ADJ is mentioned in coloumn No.5 for the State of CG but in the first para of the notification, it is specifically mentioned that the Central Government hereby designates the Court(s) of Sessions, as mentioned in the Table below, as Special Court(s) for the area(s) specified in the said Table against the said Courts, for trial of offences punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. Thus, there is no ambiguity and as per Annexure R/1 filed with the reply i.e. order dated 12.4.2017 issued by this Court, the impugned order passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur is in accordance with law.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. It is true that when cognizance was taken by the 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, at that time the petitioners did not challenge the jurisdiction of the Court nor thereafter any application was filed by them challenging the jurisdiction. They have directly come before this Court challenging the jurisdiction of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge.
6. In para-1 of the Notification dated 5th February, 2016 of Annexure A/2 it is specifically mentioned that in consultation with the Chief Justices of the respective High Courts, the Central Government hereby designates the Court(s) of Sessions, as mentioned in the Table below, as Special Court(s) for the area(s) specified in the said Table against the said Courts, for trial of offences punishable under Section 4 of the said Act i.e. Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. Therefore, from the said Notification it is clear that the Sessions Court is appointed for trying the offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
7. As per Annexure R/1 i.e. order No.756/Confdl./2017/II-2-1/2017 dated 12.4.2017, Shri Vivek Kumar Verma, the then I Civil Judge Class-I & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur after being promoted, was appointed to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) and posted as IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Raipur. Relevant portion of Annexure R/1 is reproduced as under:
S. Name & From To Sessions Posted as
presently posted Division
No. as
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1. Shri Vivek Kumar Raipur Raipur Raipur IV Additional
Verma, I Civil District &
Judge Class-I & Sessions Judge
Chief Judicial
Magistrate
Articles 233 and 236 of the Constitution of India reads thus:
"233. Appointment of district judges. (1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. (2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.
236. Interpretation. - In this Chapter --
(a) the expression "district judge" includes judge of a city civil court, additional district judge, joint district judge, assistant district judge, chief judge of a small cause court, chief presidency magistrate, additional chief presidency magistrate, sessions judge, additional sessions judge and assistant sessions Judge;
(b) the expression "judicial service" means a service consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of district judge and other civil judicial posts inferior to the post of district judge.
8. On the basis of above discussions, in view of Notification of Annexure A/2 and Order of Annexure R/1 as also Articles 233 & 236 of the Constitution of India, there is no prima facie illegality committed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge in taking cognizance of the matter and passing the impugned order dated 16.7.2018. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of A.R. Antulay (supra) being distinguishable on facts of the present case is of no help to the petitioners. Accordingly, the revision petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed.
Sd/ (Gautam Chourdiya) Judge Khan