PMLA special procedure prevails over Cr.P.C. safeguards; ECIR and complaint were not quashed on constitutional grounds.

The Gujarat High Court analysed the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as a special code governing arrest, search, seizure, investigation and prosecution, with overriding effect under sections 65 and 71. It held that Cr.P.C. procedural requirements do not displace the Act's authorised investigative scheme, and the offence cannot be treated as non-cognizable or bailable merely because cognizance is taken on complaint before the Special Court. The Court also found no basis to quash the ECIR or complaint on Articles 14 and 21 grounds, and left issues on the statement under section 50 to the trial court. The petitions were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the investigation and proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were vitiated for want of compliance with the procedural requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the offence under the Act could be treated as non-cognizable and bailable; (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to quashing of the ECIR and the complaint on the ground of alleged violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the investigation and proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were vitiated for want of compliance with the procedural requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the offence under the Act could be treated as non-cognizable and bailable?

Analysis: The relevant scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 shows that money-laundering is a serious economic offence punishable under section 4, with special procedures for arrest, search, seizure, investigation and prosecution. Sections 65 and 71 give the Act overriding effect to the extent of inconsistency, while section 46 regulates proceedings before the Special Court. The Court held that the Cr.P.C. does not displace the special procedure under the Act in relation to investigation by authorised officers, and the reliance placed on general Cr.P.C. safeguards for police investigation was misplaced. The Court also held, following the statutory scheme and the later Supreme Court view, that the offence under the Act could not be treated as non-cognizable and bailable merely because cognizance is taken on complaint before the Special Court.

Conclusion: The challenge based on alleged non-compliance with the Cr.P.C. failed, and the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was not held to be non-cognizable or bailable in the manner urged by the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to quashing of the ECIR and the complaint on the ground of alleged violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?

Analysis: On the facts placed before the Court, the petitioners could not establish that the procedure adopted under the Act had deprived them of personal liberty without authority of law. The Court found that the statutory framework of the Act was followed, that the objections based on the alleged absence of Cr.P.C. procedure did not justify interference, and that questions regarding admissibility and evidentiary value of the statement recorded under section 50 were matters for the trial court.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to quashing of the ECIR or the complaint on constitutional grounds.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were rejected, the interim protection was vacated, and the trial was directed to proceed in accordance with law.

---