Money-laundering offence is cognizable; CrPC applies to investigation and Additional Sessions Judges may act as Special Courts.

The offence of money-laundering is treated as cognizable and non-bailable, and investigation under the special statute must follow the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the extent it is not inconsistent with the Act. A notified Court of Sessions may include an Additional Sessions Judge, who can function as the designated Special Court for trial under the Act. Arrest and custody were held not illegal where the statutory arrest procedure was not shown to have been breached, and no ground existed for habeas corpus. The investigation was nevertheless directed to continue in accordance with the Code.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the offence under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is cognizable and whether the investigation under that Act must follow the procedural safeguards of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the Court of Sessions notified as a Special Court includes an Additional Sessions Judge for trial under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. (iii) Whether the arrest and custody of the petitioner were illegal so as to justify a writ of habeas corpus.

Issue (i): Whether the offence under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is cognizable and whether the investigation under that Act must follow the procedural safeguards of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The punishment prescribed under section 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, read with the Second Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, places the offence in the category of cognizable and non-bailable offences. The Act contains no deeming fiction making the offence non-cognizable, and section 45 also treats offences under the Act as cognizable and non-bailable. At the same time, sections 65 and 71 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 show that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies so far as it is not inconsistent with the special statute, and the special statute does not provide a parallel procedure for investigation comparable to sections 154, 157, 167 and 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The offence under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is cognizable, and investigation must be carried out by following the procedure of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the extent not inconsistent with the special Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court of Sessions notified as a Special Court includes an Additional Sessions Judge for trial under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Section 43 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 empowers the Central Government to designate one or more Courts of Sessions as Special Courts. The notification designating the Sessions Courts at specified places was not confined to the office of Sessions Judge alone. Since an Additional Sessions Judge falls within the Court of Session under section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such judge can function as the designated Special Court for trial of offences under section 4 of the Act.

Conclusion: The Additional Sessions Judge is competent to act as the designated Special Court under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (iii): Whether the arrest and custody of the petitioner were illegal so as to justify a writ of habeas corpus.

Analysis: Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 authorises arrest by the specified officers on recorded reasons to believe and requires production before the jurisdictional Magistrate within twenty-four hours. Section 45 regulates bail before the Special Court. In the absence of material showing non-compliance with the statutory arrest procedure, and where the competent Special Court has already rejected bail, the custody cannot be branded illegal.

Conclusion: The custody was not illegal, and no ground was made out for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the prosecution, investigation, arrest and custody under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 failed, though the investigating agency was directed to proceed in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the ongoing investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: An offence under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is cognizable, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to investigation and allied proceedings to the extent not inconsistent with the special Act, and a notified Court of Sessions includes an Additional Sessions Judge acting as the designated Special Court.

---