ANOOP BARTARIA & ETC versus DY. DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 531 · Decided: 21-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
531
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 531
531
ANOOP BARTARIA & ETC.
v.
DY. DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR.
(SLP (Crl.) No. 2397-2398 of 2019)
APRIL 21, 2023
[AJAY RASTOGI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.3 – Offence
of money laundering – Knowledge of dealing with the proceeds of
crime, if sine qua non for– Held: No – Knowledge of the accused
that he was dealing with proceeds of crime is not a condition
precedent or sine qua non required to be shown by the prosecution
for lodging the complaint under the Act – Apart from having
knowledge, if a person who directly or indirectly attempts to indulge
or is actually involved in the process or activity connected with the
proceeds of crime, is also guilty of the offence of money laundering
– In the present case, serious allegations of money laundering are
alleged against both the petitioners in the prosecution complaint –
Sufficient material particulars have been narrated in the complaint
to substantiate the said allegations, prima facie showing the direct
involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences of money
laundering as defined in s.3, which require a trial to be conducted–
Further, power to quash a complaint should be exercised sparingly
and with circumspection, that too in the rarest of rare cases – High
Court rightly dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners – Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.120B,
420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
– s.13(2), 13(1)(d).
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45 – Sub-
section (1) substituted by the Act 20 of 2005 – Explanation to s.45
inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 – Held: From the
substitution of sub-section (1) and insertion of the Explanation to
s.45, and non-amendment in the short title of s.45, it is clear that all
the offences under the PMLA were, are and shall be “cognizable
and non-bailable offences” notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in the CrPC – Accordingly, the officers authorized under
the PMLA Act are empowered to arrest an accused without warrant,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
subject to the fulfilment of conditions u/s.19, PMLA which deals
with power to arrest and subject to the conditions enshrined u/s.45
– In the instant case, the prosecution complaint was lodged by the
authorized officer – Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 – Held: Money
laundering poses a serious threat to the financial system of the
countries and to their integrity and sovereignty – Hence, any lenient
view in dealing with such offences would be a travesty of justice.
State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others
1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 –
relied on.
Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India and Another
(2018) 11 SCC 1 : [2017] 12 SCR 358; Pepsi Foods
Ltd. and Another vs Special Judicial Magistrate and
Others (1998) 5 SCC 749 : [1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 12 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 12 SCR 358
referred to
Para 12
[1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 12
referred to
Para 14
[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259
relied on
Para 15
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) Nos. 2397-2398 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCRW Nos. 704 and 757 of
2018.
Swadeep Hora, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Anshuman
Srivastava, Anirudh Bhatia, E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Arkaj Kumar, Padmesh Mishra, Annam Venkatesh, Zoheb
Hussain, Sabarish Subramanian, Mrs. Shardha Deshmukh, Kanu Agarwal,
Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The petitioners by way of these petitions have challenged the
common judgment and order dated 21.02.2019 passed by the High Court
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
533
of Judicature for Rajasthan, Benchat Jaipur, in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition
No. 704 of 2018 and S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 757 of 2018, whereby
the High Court has dismissed both the petitions imposing cost of Rs.
50,000/-.
2. The S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 704 of 2018 was filed by
the petitioner – Anoop Bartaria, Director of World Trade Park Ltd.
seeking a prayer to quash ECIR No.JPZO/01/2016 registered by the
Jaipur Zonal Office of Enforcement Directorate, with further prayer
against the respondents not to file any criminal complaint against the
petitioner and not to t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.