Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

―11. Although, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 - ED tried to impress upon this Court that the ECIR is a private internal document and not at par with an FIR, and as such is not required to be quashed, the said submission was not pressed, when the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions showed a copy of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the said case, the learned Solicitor General appearing for the appellant - ED made a statement that since the proceedings before the Court (Apex Court) arose from an order of attachment and there is acquittal in respect of the predicate offence, the ED proceeding really would not survive.

8. In support of his contentions, learned Special Counsel placed reliance on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) and in particular, the following paragraphs thereof:

―461. It is true that the ED Manual may be an internal document for departmental use and in the nature of set of administrative orders. It is equally true that the accused or for that matter common public may not be entitled to have access to such administrative instructions being highly confidential and dealing with complex issues concerning mode and manner of investigation, for internal guidance of officers of ED. It is also correct to say that there is no such requirement under the 2002 Act or for that matter, that there is nothing like investigation of a crime of money- laundering as per the scheme of 2002 Act. The investigation, however, is to track the property being proceeds of crime and to attach the same for being dealt with under the 2002 Act. Stricto sensu, it is in the nature of an inquiry in respect of civil action of attachment. Nevertheless, since the inquiry in due course ends in identifying the offender who is involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and then to prosecute him, it is possible for the department to outline the situations in which that course could be adopted in reference to specific provisions of 2002 Act or the Rules framed thereunder; and in which event, what are the options available to such person before the Authority or the Special Court, as the case may be. Such document may come handy and disseminate information to all concerned. At least the feasibility of placing such document on the official website of ED may be explored. 
                          ***                                     ***                              ***




                  W.P.(CRL) 562/2023
457. Suffice it to observe that being a special legislation providing for special mechanism regarding inquiry/investigation of offence of money-

laundering, analogy cannot be drawn from the provisions of 1973 Code, in regard to registration of offence of money-laundering and more so being a complaint procedure prescribed under the 2002 Act. Further, the authorities referred to in Section 48 of the 2002 Act alone are competent to file such complaint. It is a different matter that the materials/evidence collected by the same authorities for the purpose of civil action of attachment of proceeds of crime and confiscation thereof may be used to prosecute the person involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime for offence of money-laundering. Considering the mechanism of inquiry/investigation for proceeding against the property (being proceeds of crime) under this Act by way of civil action (attachment and confiscation), there is no need to formally register an ECIR, unlike registration of an FIR by the jurisdictional police in respect of cognizable offence under the ordinary law. There is force in the stand taken by the ED that ECIR is an internal document created by the department before initiating penal action or prosecution against the person involved with process or activity connected with proceeds of crime. Thus, ECIR is not a statutory document, nor there is any provision in 2002 Act requiring Authority referred to in Section 48 to record ECIR or to furnish copy thereof to the accused unlike Section 154 of the 1973 Code. The fact that such ECIR has not been recorded, does not come in the way of the authorities referred to in Section 48 of the 2002 Act to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating civil action of attachment of property being proceeds of crime by following prescribed procedure in that regard.

32. The stand taken by the department in the written submissions filed by learned Special Counsel is that „The argument of the petitioner that FIR 55/2023 cannot be added to the existing ECIR, and ED should record an additional ECIR is against the scheme of the PMLA Act. In this regard it is submitted that the entire PMLA Act does not even mention the term „ECIR‟, that ECIR is an internal departmental document for administrative purposes‟. In view thereof, as stated hereinbefore, the third FIR in the present case relates to the commission of a ‗scheduled offence' in respect of the complainant therein, but for the purposes of an investigation under the PMLA, it would be the part of the same ECIR which related to investigation pertaining to ‗proceeds of crime' under the PMLA in the previous FIRs. Needless to state, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), has categorically held that the offence under PMLA is an independent offence. Since the ECIR has not been equated with an FIR and has been held to be an internal document, there cannot possibly be a W.P.(CRL) 562/2023 restriction to bringing on record on any subsequent ‗scheduled offence' registered by way of an FIR alleged to have been committed in respect of the same transaction which was the subject matter of such ECIR.