Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The Special Judge, after hearing submissions of Enforcement Directorate, proceeded to take cognizance against the accused persons including the petitioner for the offence under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002 and also ordered to secure the presence of all the accused persons through execution of arrest warrants vide order dated 21.01.2019.

12. All the petitioners have pleaded in their Revision Petitions that the Special Court, has proceeded to take cognizance against them for offence under Section 4 of PMLA, 2002 in disregard of the fact that essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 defining the offence of money laundering, do not stand disclosed even prima-facie. The petitioners have pleaded (8 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019] that Special Judge further perpetuated gross abuse of process of court by directly issuing arrest warrants to secure the presence of the accused persons.

13. Mr.Vivek Bajwa, learned counsel appearing for the accused Shyam Sunder Singh has made following submissions:-

13.1 The impugned order of taking cognizance has been passed in a mechanical manner without applying due judicious mind as the punitive ingredients of the offence under Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 are not spelt out in the present case, on the bare perusal of the criminal complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate.

13.2 The offence of money laundering, as defined under Section 3 & penalized under Section 4 of PMLA, 2002, requires that proceeds of crime are concealed or possessed or acquired or used for the purpose of projecting or claiming it to be untainted property. The proceeds of crime is a property which is derived directly or indirectly by a person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.

14. Mr.A.K.Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the accused Dr.Ashok Singhvi has made following submissions:-

14.1 There is no allegation against the petitioner and in absence of any specific allegation of committing offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, the cognizance order is vitiated.

14.2 The entire charge-sheet, filed under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the complaint filed under the provisions of PMLA, 2002 nowhere show demand or receipt of any money by the petitioner and even there is no attempt on the part of the petitioner to connect him with the commission of offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002.

35. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the court below has not taken into account the requirement of basic ingredients for commission of offence under Section 3 of the (18 of 34) [CRLR-273/2019] PMLA, 2002 and same being not spelt out even from the bare perusal of the criminal complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate, this court, after considering the various provisions contained in PMLA, 2002 with respect to "proceeds of crime" as defined under Section 2(u), "property" as defined under Section 2(v) and Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, finds that for making out an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, the court is required to consider that any person who involves himself directly or indirectly with any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projects the same to be untainted money, can very well be prosecuted under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. The court below, if after considering the allegations against the petitioners and after analysing the material placed before it, has come to the conclusion that cognizance is required to be taken, and no fault can be found with such an order.