Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(xii) It is submitted that the application of Cr.P.C. is necessary since it is a procedure established by law and there cannot be an investigation outside the purview of Section 154 or 155 of the Cr.P.C. Reference is made to the constitutional safeguards of reasonability and fairness. It is submitted that the Act itself, under Section 65, provides for the applicability of the Cr.P.C.22 It is pointed out that several safeguards, procedural in nature are being violated. To illustrate a few - non registration of FIR, lack of a case diary, 22Ashok Munilal Jain & Anr. vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 16 SCC 158 (Paras 3-5) restricted access to the ECIR, violation of Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., lack of magisterial permission under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. Such unguided use of power to investigate and prosecute any person violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

(i) In respect of the procedure found in Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. for the purposes of investigation, he relied upon Ashok Munilal 161 Which states that “(v) to amend section 45 of the Act relating to offences to be cognizable and non-bailable and to amend sub-section (1) of section 45 to substitute the words “punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule” by words “under this Act” so as to take a step further towards delinking the Scheduled offence and money laundering offence. Further, it seeks to amend the proviso in subsection (1) by inserting the words “or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money laundering a sum of less than Rupees one crore”, after the words “sick or infirm” to allow the Court to apply lenient bail provisions in case of money laundering offence is not grave in nature.” (emphasis supplied) Jain & Anr. vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement163, wherein it had been noted that Section 4(2) of the Cr.P.C. prescribes mandatory application even in respect to special statutes unless expressly barred164. Thus, the dictum is that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. would be applicable to the extent in the absence of any contrary provision in the special Act or any special provision excluding the jurisdiction or applicability of the Cr.P.C. The point of admissibility of statement made to customs officers and Section 25 of the 1872 Act is also touched again165. Relying upon Om Prakash & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr.166, it is argued that in the absence of a procedure to investigate irrespective of cognizability, no investigation can be permitted in law. And in respect of cognizable offence, the investigation cannot go on without recording information under Section 154 or 155 of the Cr.P.C., forwarding of report or FIR to competent Magistrate under Section 157 of Cr.P.C., maintaining a paginated case diary as under Section 163 (2018) 16 SCC 158 (also at Footnote No.22) 164M.K. Ayoob & Ors. vs. Superintendent, Customs Intelligence Unit, Cochin & Anr., 1984 Crl.L.J. 949; and The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue, Madras vs. M.K.S. Abu Bucker, 1990 Cri.L.J 704.

165 A.R. Antulay vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak & Anr. (1984) 2 SCC 500 166 (2011) 14 SCC 1 172 of the Cr.P.C., as also, its production before the Magistrate, as provided by Section 167.

(ii) A passing reference is also made to the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966167, whereby vide Section 6, the application of Section 155 Cr.P.C. was excluded, but in the case of PMLA, since there is no express departure from these provisions of the Cr.P.C., it being a non-cognizable offence, all these protections must come into play. In contradistinction, if it is found to be a cognizable offence, all protections including under Sections 154, 157, 167 and 172 Cr.P.C., will prevail.

(xl) While referring to Sections 4 and 5 of the Cr.P.C., it is urged that Cr.P.C is a generic procedural law with no universal application over any other special criminal or penal legislations. It is stated that the Legislature is competent to provide a different procedure than that of Cr.P.C, provided that the special procedure has adequate constitutional safeguards. Therefore, it is submitted that the Parliament has provided a distinct procedure under the PMLA which is also manifested from Sections 65 and 71 of the PMLA. It is stated that due to the peculiar nature of the offence of money-laundering, the Legislature in its wisdom has provided a special procedure for investigation and trial of the offence under the Act. However, it is submitted that where the application of Cr.P.C is not expressly or by 198 (2005) 2 SCC 436 199 (1999) 2 SCC 228 necessary implication excluded, the provisions of Cr.P.C will apply in light of Section 65 of PMLA as well.