Court dismisses petition challenging summons under Cr.P.C., allows Special Judge to act without FIR. Property attachment doesn't bar money-laundering prosecution. Petitioner's claim rejected. Trial to proceed promptly.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the summon issued under Section 61 of Cr.P.C., holding that the Special Judge can take cognizance without registering an FIR under the PMLA. Additionally, the court ruled that the adjudicating authority's finding on provisional attachment of property does not bar prosecution for money-laundering. The petitioner's claim of no connection with the accused company was rejected, and the court directed the trial court to proceed with the complaint promptly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Statutory infirmity in taking cognizance without registering an FIR.
2. Effect of adjudicating authority's finding on provisional attachment of property.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Statutory Infirmity in Taking Cognizance Without Registering an FIR:

The petitioner challenged the summon issued under Section 61 of Cr.P.C., contending that the Enforcement Directorate's complaint was taken cognizance by the Special Judge without registering an FIR as required under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. The court analyzed Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA, which include non-obstante clauses, indicating that the Special Court can take cognizance of a complaint in writing by a duly authorized officer without the accused being committed, notwithstanding anything in the Cr.P.C. The court held that the plea regarding the locus of the respondent to file the complaint without registering an FIR is unfounded. The complaint by the authorized officer is akin to a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and not a final report by a police officer under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. Thus, the court concluded that the petitioner's argument lacks merit and held against the petitioner.

2. Effect of Adjudicating Authority's Finding on Provisional Attachment of Property:

The petitioner argued that since the adjudicating authority found the provisional attachment of his property unsustainable, the prosecution under Section 45 read with Sections 70 and 8(5) of the PMLA should not continue. The court clarified that the adjudication process under Chapter III of the PMLA is independent and preventive, ensuring that proceeds of crime are not concealed or transferred pending trial. The finding of the adjudicating authority that the properties are not proceeds of crime does not equate to a clean chit for the offence of money-laundering. The court emphasized that the offence of money-laundering includes activities such as concealment, possession, acquisition, use, and projecting or claiming as untainted property. The process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity. Therefore, the court held that the adjudicating authority's finding does not prevent the prosecution of the petitioner for money-laundering.

The court also addressed the petitioner's claim of no connection with the first accused company, finding it a self-serving statement contrary to the evidence collected. The court noted that the adjudicating authority confirmed the provisional attachment order regarding the company in which the petitioner had pecuniary interest. Under Section 70 of the PMLA, the petitioner, as a person in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, is liable to face trial.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petition, stating that the plea regarding the locus of the respondent to file the complaint without registering an FIR is unfounded and the adjudicating authority's finding on provisional attachment does not prevent the prosecution for money-laundering. The trial court is directed to proceed with the complaint expeditiously.

---