LexYASH TUTEJA & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 4 S.C.R. 591 : 2024 INSC 301 Yash Tuteja & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 153 of 2023) 08 April 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was a challenge to the Complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, mainly on the ground that apart from s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code, no other offences were scheduled offences, within the meaning of clause (y) of sub-section (1) of s. 2 of PMLA.` Headnotes Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Clause (y) of sub-Section (1) of s. 2 – Scheduled Offence – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 120B – Complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement on the basis of the offences which were not scheduled offences, except s. 120-B of IPC – Challenge to: Held: Offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC could become a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy alleged is of committing an offence which is specifically included in the Schedule to the PMLA – Admittedly, the offences alleged in the complaint except Section 120-B of IPC are not the scheduled offences – Conspiracy to commit any of the offences included in the Schedule has not been alleged in the complaint – ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, which is the subject matter of the complaint, is based on the offences relied upon in the complaint – As the conspiracy alleged is of the commission of offences which are not the scheduled offences, the offences mentioned in the complaint are not scheduled offences within the meaning of clause (y) of sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the PMLA – Complaint arising out of ECIR filed by Directorate of Enforecement accordingly quashed. [Paras 3, 9] Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Special Court – Cognizance – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 200 to s. 204 – Procedure thereof: 592 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Held: The only mode by which the cognizance of the offence under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, can be taken by the Special Court is upon a complaint filed by the Authority authorized on this behalf – Section 46 of PMLA provides that the provisions of the Cr.PC shall apply to proceedings before a Special Court and for the purposes of the Cr.PC provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Sessions – However, sub- section (1) of Section 46 starts with the words “save as otherwise provided in this Act” – Considering the provisions of Section 46(1) of the PMLA, save as otherwise provided in the PMLA, the provisions of the Cr.PC shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court – Therefore, once a complaint is filed before the Special Court, the provisions of Sections 200 to 204 of the Cr.PC will apply to the Complaint – There is no provision in the PMLA which overrides the provisions of Sections 200 to Sections 204 of Cr.PC – Hence, the Special Court will have to apply its mind to the question of whether a prima facie case of a commission of an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is made out in a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA – If the Special Court is of the view that no prima facie case of an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is made out, it must exercise the power under Section 203 of the Cr.PC to dismiss the complaint – If a prima facie case is made out, the Special Court can take recourse to Section 204 of the Cr.PC. [Para 6] Case Law Cited Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement [2023] 13 SCR 1049 : 2023 INSC 1029 – relied on. List of Acts Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Proceeds of Crime; Scheduled Offence. Case Arising From CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 153 of 2023 (Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India) With Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 208, 216 and 217 of 2023 [2024] 4 S.C.R. 593 Yash Tuteja & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors Appearances for Parties Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Advs., Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Malak Manish Bhatt, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Harsh Srivastava, Mandeep Singh, Sidak Anand, Gharote Anurag A, Mrs. Kalyani Bhide, Aljo K. Joseph, Advs. for the Petitioners. Suryaprakash V Raju, K.M. Nataraj, A.S.Gs., Avdhesh Kumar Singh, A.A.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Mrs. Sairica Raju, Kanu Agarwal, Arkaj Kumar, Apoorv Kurup, Ravi Sha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.