RANA AYYUB versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 892 · Decided: 07-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
892
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 892
892
RANA AYYUB
v.
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 12 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 07, 2023
[V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 3, 4, 44 and
45 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 4.3, 406, 418, 420 – Information
Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 – s. 66D – Black Money Act –
s. 4 – Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 – s. 37 – Income
Tax Act, 1961 – ss. 133(6) – Petitioner during the pandemic did the
crowdfunding campaign using an online crowdfunding platform
“Ketto” – Mumbai Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate (ED)
initiated inquiry under FEMA – Also, a complaint was lodged by a
person (private complainant) in Ghaziabad for the offences u/ss.
403, 406, 418, 420 of IPC, s. 66D of IT Act and s. 4 of the Black
Money Act – In the meantime the Mumbai Zonal Office of the ED
issued notice to the petitioner seeking response relating to certain
documents and the petitioner in response to that complied with the
notice – Thereafter, the Delhi Zonal Office of the ED lodged a
complaint before the Special Judge at Ghaziabad citing that the
complaint filed by the private complainant – After that the
provisional order of attachment of the bank account of the petitioner
located at Navi Mumbai was passed by the ED – Thereafter, the
Special Judge, Ghaziabad took cognizance of the complaint lodged
by the ED (the respondent) and summoned the petitioner for
appearance – Aggrieved by the order of summoning the petitioner
has approached the Supreme Court pleading that the Special Judge
Ghaziabad has no territorial jurisdiction over the alleged offence
– Held: Acquisition of the proceeds of crime has taken place in the
virtual world, the places from where online transfers of money took
place, are known only to the petitioner or their Bankers – The
question of territorial jurisdiction in the instant case requires an
enquiry into a question of fact as to the place where the alleged
proceeds of crime were (i) concealed; or (ii) possessed; or (iii)
acquired; or (iv) used – This question of fact will depend upon the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
893
evidence that unfolds before the Trial Court – The issue of territorial
jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition, especially when
there is a serious factual dispute about the place/places of
commission of the offence – Petitioner given liberty to raise the
issue of territorial jurisdiction before the Trial Court.
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 44 –
Jurisdiction of Special Court to try scheduled offences – Held: A
combined reading of Section 44 of the PMLA and the provisions of
Sections 177 to 184 of the Cr.P.C. will make it clear that in view of
the specific mandate of clauses (a) and (c) of subsection (1) of
Section 44, it is the Special Court constituted under the PMLA that
would have jurisdiction to try even the scheduled offence – Even if
the scheduled offence is taken cognizance of by any other Court,
that Court shall commit the same, on an application by the concerned
authority, to the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the
offence of money-laundering.
Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court
HELD: 1. What is dealt with by Section 44(1)(a) of
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is a situation where
there is no complication. Section 44(1)(a) lays down the most
fundamental rule relating to territorial jurisdiction, by providing
that an offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA and any
scheduled offence connected to the same shall be triable by the
Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has
been committed. It is relevant to note that Section 44(1)(a) uses
the expression “offence” in three places in contradistinction to
the expression “scheduled offence” used only once. This usage
is not without significance. In all three places where the word
“offence” alone is used, it connotes the offence of money-
laundering. The place where the expression “scheduled offence”
is used, it connotes the predicate offence. By prescribing that an
offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA and any
scheduled offence connected to the same shall be triable by the
Special Court constituted for the area in which “the offence” has
been committed, Section 44(1)(a) makes it crystal clear that it is
the Special Court constituted under Section 43(1), which will be
empowered to try even the scheduled 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.