Twin bail conditions under PMLA must be read down, and private investigation requests remain limited by special statutory procedure.

The article explains that extending the PMLA Schedule and moving earlier Part B offences into Part A could not constitutionally expand the Section 45 twin bail conditions to all such offences; the provision was required to be read down, and the stringent bail bar was held inapplicable to offences formerly in Part B. It also states that a private person may seek investigation only within the procedural limits of the special statutes and the Code: under the Customs Act, investigation may be sought according to cognizability, but cognizance requires Section 137 sanction; under PMLA, a private complaint cannot trigger investigation unless the scheduled offence has first been set in motion lawfully. The composite prayer was rejected as premature.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendments enlarging the scope of scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and inserting Section 132 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the Schedule were unconstitutional or required reading down so that the twin bail conditions in Section 45(1) would continue to apply to all offences shifted from Part B to Part A. (ii) Whether a private individual could set the criminal law in motion by seeking directions for investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in relation to offences under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the amendments enlarging the scope of scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and inserting Section 132 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the Schedule were unconstitutional or required reading down so that the twin bail conditions in Section 45(1) would continue to apply to all offences shifted from Part B to Part A.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Act, its Objects and Reasons, and the earlier classification of offences into Parts A and B showed that the original twin bail conditions in Section 45(1) were intended for the grave offences that were already placed in Part A. The 2013 amendment shifting earlier Part B offences into Part A was found to have been made only to remove the monetary threshold for invoking the Act, not to extend the stringent bail restriction to those offences. Applying the twin conditions to all such shifted offences, including less grave and even compoundable or bailable ones, would create an unreasonable classification and offend Articles 14 and 21.

Conclusion: The reference to Part A in Section 45(1) was required to be read down, and the twin bail conditions were held inapplicable to persons accused of offences that had earlier stood in Part B of the Schedule.

Issue (ii): Whether a private individual could set the criminal law in motion by seeking directions for investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in relation to offences under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Court held that neither statute contained an absolute bar against moving the Magistrate for investigation, though cognizance remained controlled by the special statutory provisions. For the Customs Act, 1962, directions for investigation could be sought under the Code depending on whether the alleged offence was cognizable or non-cognizable, but cognizance could not be taken without the sanction required by Section 137. For the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, a private complaint could not by itself trigger investigation unless the underlying scheduled offence had been set in motion in the manner contemplated by law. In the absence of registration of the scheduled offence or a complaint by the authorized officer, the composite prayer was premature and not maintainable.

Conclusion: The prayer for a composite private complaint and investigation into both the Customs Act, 1962 offence and the money-laundering offence was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the bail-related interpretation succeeded in part, but the composite writ relief was not maintainable on the facts, so the petition was dismissed overall.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory classification that extends a stringent bail regime to offences shifted into a schedule for a limited fiscal threshold purpose, without legislative intent to alter bail consequences, must be read down to avoid arbitrariness; and a private request for investigation can proceed only within the procedural framework of the special statute and the Code, subject to the bar on cognizance.

---