Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Sri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.6210/2019 would contend that basis on which the Enforcement Directorate have issued summons to the petitioner to appear before them is for a purported investigation being carried, which is an offshoot of search conducted by the Income Tax Department and a complaint having been filed before the jurisdictional Court after purportedly obtaining sanction under Section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'IT Act') alleging thereunder, that accused No.1 i.e., Sri D K Shivakumar committed an offence punishable under Sections 276C(I), 277 of IT Act and Sections 193 and 199 read with Section 120B of IPC and accused Nos.2 to 5 had committed an offence punishable under Sections 278, 277 of IT Act and Sections 193 and 199 read with Section 120B of IPC and to take cognizance for which offences are not scheduled offences under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PML Act'). He would contend that Section 120B of IPC cannot be invoked in the absence of predicate offence and offence under IT Act not being a scheduled offence, proceedings under PML Act cannot be continued. He would also contend that a plain reading of the definition clause of Section 2(p), 2(u) & Section 3 of PML Act would clearly indicate that it is only the "proceeds of crime" if attempted to be ploughed into main stream of the economy would attract the definition of "money laundering" and offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner even according to respondents being under IT Act and same not being a scheduled offence, which is sine qua non for the provisions of PML Act being attracted, question of petitioner appearing before ED does not arise. He would elaborate his submission by contending that offence punishable under Section 276C(1) and Section 277 of the IT Act are compoundable offences under Section 279(2) and stage has not come where prosecution can be lodged and the procedure adopted by the enforcement authority is unknown to the cannons of law. Hence, he seeks for quashing of summons issued to petitioner to appear for investigation and entire proceedings pending before ED.

4. Sri B.V.Acharya, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in W.P.No.5299/2019 would submit that very initiation of the prosecution against petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under IT Act has been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.32593/2018 by questioning the validity of the sanction order, contending interalia that said authority who had issued the sanction order to prosecute the petitioner did not possess authority and said order is without jurisdiction and he is not the competent authority empowered to grant such sanction under Section 279(1) of IT Act, which fact had been taken note of by the co-ordinate Bench and by order dated 30.07.2018 had granted stay of further proceedings pursuant to order passed by the jurisdictional Court taking cognizance of the offence, which order of stay enures to the benefit of petitioner and as such, Enforcement Directorate could not have issued the impugned notice/summons calling upon petitioner to appear for investigation. He would draw the attention of the Court to Section 279(1A) of IT Act in respect of which, penalty is imposable for the offence under Section 276C and 277 of IT Act and as such proceedings under PML Act cannot be continued against petitioner. He would contend that order of stay passed in W.P.No.32593/2018, in effect would mean that no proceedings can be taken or proceeded with against petitioner by the Enforcement Directorate, inasmuch as, the impugned notice is continuation of the proceedings before Special Court which is an offshoot of the search made under the provisions of the IT Act. He would also draw the attention of the Court to the sanction order dated 28.05.2018 (Annexure-G) to contend that Section 120B of IPC having been referred to thereunder is also the subject matter of stay order passed in W.P.No.32593/2018 on 30.07.2018.

7. Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.5408/2019 by adopting the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel-Sri Kapil Sibal, Sri B.V.Acharya would add that under the sanction order dated 28.05.2018 (Annexure-A), it is alleged that petitioner has aided and abetted and as such, Section 120B IPC is not attracted or it does not arise and until and unless petitioner is found guilty of the offence under Section 277 and 278 of IT Act, Section 120B IPC cannot be invoked. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition by quashing the impugned notice.

8. Sri A Shankar, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.No. 5824/2019 would contend that none of the provisions of IT Act are Schedule offences under Part-A to C of PML Act and the offence punishable under Section 277 and 278 of IT Act which is invoked for grant of sanction not being a Scheduled offence under PML Act, the very invoking of the provisions of PML Act is bad in law. He would contend that third respondent has clearly admitted that ECIR has been registered against the petitioner for the offences under the provisions of PML Act, pursuant to a private complaint filed by first respondent, which is IT Department and as such proceedings under PML Act is liable to be quashed.