TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were attached owned by the appellants . It is an admitted position that the writ petition which was earlier pending before the Hon'ble Kerala High Court is withdrawn after the hearing continued in the present appeals. 2. SCHEDULED OFFENCE. The superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Cochin vide letter no. 827/3/11(S)/2011/SPE/KER dated 26.02.2014 forwarded the consolidated Final Report under Section 173 (2) Cr. PC no. DV1/04 dated 03.02.2014 filed before the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam in respect of the FIRs RC 11 (S)/2011- CBI/ACB/Cochin, RC 13 (S)/2011-CBI/ACB/Cochin, RC 16 (S)/2011- CBI/ACB/Cochin, RC 20 (S)/2011-CBI/ACB/Cochin, RC 21 (S)/2011- CBI/ACB/Cochin, RC 22(S)/2011-CBI/ACB/Cochin, RC 09 (S)/2011- CBI/ACB/TVPM for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420 IPC, 1860 read with Sections 4(d), 4(f). 7(3), 9 of Lotteries (Regulation)Act, 1988 and 3 (5)m 4(5) of Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010 against Shri. S. Martin and others. The case has now been numbered by the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam as CC no. 218/2015. The accused persons are Shri. S. Martin (A-1), Managing Director of Future Gaming ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 9. Charles Realators Pvt. Ltd., 54, Mettupalayam Road, G.N. Mill Post, Coimbatore 641029 represented by its Director Shri S. Martin. 10. Martin Multi Projects Pvt. Ltd., 54, Mettupalayam Road, G.N. Mill Post, Coimbatore 641029 represented by its Director Shri S. Martin. 11. Daison Luxury Villas Pvt. Ltd., 54, Mettupalaym Road, G.N. Mill Post, Coimbatore 641029 Represented by its Director The case was, therefore, registered against the said persons and was taken up for investigation under the provisions of PMLA 2002 and the rules framed therein. 4. Directorate of Enforcement Cochin commenced an investigation under PMLA, 2002 by virtue of the powers conferred under section 48 and 49 of the Act read with Government of India Notification No. GSR 441 (E) dated 01.07.2005 against the petitioner and other persons on the basis of Final Report filed by CBI, Cochin under section 173 (2) CrPc, 1973 as no. DV1/04 dated 03.02.2014 before the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for committing the offences punishable under section 120B, 420 IPC r/w Section 4(d), 4(f), 7(3), 9 of Lotteries (Regulation) Act. 1998 (in short LR Act) and 3(5), 4(5) of Lotter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... effect from 02.07.2007. These rules were issued at a time when the investigation under PMLA, 2002 looking into the aspect of non-payment of sales proceeds to the Government of Sikkim, was at an advanced stage. These rules seeks to restrict the liability of the sole distributor of Sikkim State Lottery with regard to the payment of paper lottery sold to the sole distributor. During the time period covered in the CBI final report, the sole distributor was required to pay the invoices raised on them by the Government of Sikkim subject to the set off in respect of the prize money up to Rs. 5000/- paid to the prize winner directly by the sole distributor or other entities below him in the marketing chain. 5.4 The clean chit said to have been given by the Sikkim government to its sole distributor is apparently without being aware of the manipulations in prize winning tickets done at M.J. Associates. With regard to the averment in paragraph 16 and 20 it is submitted that as per charge no. 1 of the CBI charge sheet filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam in CC No. 218/2015 the accused persons A1-A7 including the petitioner, by way of non-remittance of sales proceeds ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a partnership firm comprising of the petitioner and Sri Jayamurugan, had paid money in cash apart from cheques/bank transfers and the money paid in cash was accounted as prize-winning tickets. Shri J. Jayakumar, the partner of JK Enterprises, the largest stockists of M.J. Associates in terms of the value of tickets sold through them had clearly admitted to have given huge amounts of cash apart from payments made through bank transfers/cheques as per the instructions received from M.J. Associates and these were accounted as Prize-Winning Tickets. He also admitted that he was maintained 2 ledgers for prize-Winning Tickets and they named as Prize-Winning Tickets-1 and Prize and Prize-Winning Tickets 2. He also stated that the amount paid in cash was being accounted as prize-winning tickets in the ledger Prize-Winning Tickets.-2. The statement of Shri Jayakumar has been corroborated by the sub stockists of J.K. Enterprises. They have stated before the investigating officer that they were paying cash which was accounted as prize-winning tickets. Apart from this, an employee of M.J. Associates Smt. Indra Gupta in her statement had stated that the Stockists settled the Bill by making bank....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are unconstitutional, having no legal effect. ii) Since the FIRs were forwarded to CBI, State of Sikkim refused sanction to CBI under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. iii) Offences alleged under Lotteries Regulation Act 1998 or its Rules, are not scheduled offences under PMLA Act. iv) The Appellant's. Company - Future Gaming & Hotel Service Private Limited was appointed as a Distributor of Lotteries through a tender process. The following chart explains the selling chain of the Sikkim Lotteries in the State of Kerala: Govt. of Sikkim Future Graming & Hotel Service Private Limited (Sole Purchaser) Megha Distributors (Promoters of Kerala) M.J. Associates (Super Stockiest for Kerala) (Partnership firm of S.Martin and N Jayamurgan) Stockists Sub-Stockist Retailers v) Appellant's Company continues to be a Distributor of the Sikkim Lotteries. vi) 31 FIRs were filed of which 24 were closed. Remaining 7 FIRs were all filed by Officers of the State of Kerala. Each of the FIRs allege non-compliance of the Lotteries Act and its Rules by the State of Sikkim. The Complainants d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(j), the prize money unclaimed within such time or not otherwise distributed shall become the property of the Government and that an allegation is seen made to the effect that the petitioner failed to remit the prize and unclaimed and thereby Section 4(f) is attracted. This court is to the firm opinion that Section 4(/) has no application since there was no complaint from the Government of Sikkim and Buttan as against the petitioner that accused No.5 had misappropriated the unclaimed prize money or prize money covered by lottery tickets that were not sold or distributed. Here also the head of Lottery Monetary Cell, Kerala State has no cause of action on this point. 40. As far as Rule 4 (5) is concerned, distributors or selling agents shall return the unsold tickets to the Organising State with full accounts along with the challans of the money deposited in the Public ledger Account or in the Consolidated Fund of the Organising State through the sale of tickets. In the instant case, I reiterate here that the Government of Sikkim or Buttan has no complaint as against the petitioner stating that he failed to return unsold tickets to them nor submitted fully account as contemp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n raised by the Petitioner against the proceedings, after affording the Petitioner an opportunity for hearing untrammelled by the prima facie findings rendered in this Order, while passing orders under S. 8(2) of the Act." xv. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority was obligated to decided jurisdiction. But, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has left the reasons to believe as stated in the following paragraph of the Impugned Judgment: "though there is no material brought on record regarding prosecution launched under section 3 of FMLA against the Defendants as of now. The fact remains that a reasonable belief is entertained that Defendants have committed an offence under section 3 of PMLA or are in possession of proceeds of crime." xvi. The proof of rubber stamping the Provisional Attachment is the non-consideration of the following: a. While the allegation is as regards sale in State of Kerala, all India revenues have been treated as proceeds of crime. b. No complaint by Sikkim. c. All prizes disbursed as per Sikkim Lottery Rules which are statutory. d. Prizes disbursed on Super and Special tickets ignored. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Regulation) Rules are not attached and will not lie as against the appellant Martin. But the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam by the order held that the appellant should stand trial with regard to Section 9 read with Section, 7(3) of the lotteries (Regulation) Act and Rule 3(5) of the Lotteries (Regulation ) Rules, 2010 and Section 120(B) of IPC. CBI has filed revision petition against the said order in CMP No. 2201/2016 in CC 218/2015 dated 20.01.2018 before the Hon'ble District and Sessions Court Ernakulam with prayer to set aside the said order dated 20.01.2018 of the Hon'ble CJM, Ernakulam and issued appropriate order in accordance with law . the revision petitions till under consideration of Hon'ble session Court, Ernakulam. (d) It is submitted that the calculation of amount of prizewinning tickets illegally claimed for setting off the bills raised by the Government of Sikkim is not a theoretical calculation. This calculation has been made after the investigation unearthed evidence that the lottery stockiest while settling their bills raised by M.J. Associates, a partnership firm comprising of the petitioner and Sri Jayamurugan, had paid money in cash apart from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that the methodology adopted in calculation of proceeds of crime is based on the principles of averages. (h) In the peculiarity of this case were the generation of proceeds of crime is on account of wrongful claim of crores of lottery tickets claimed to have been prize winning tickets and was handled and destroyed by the firm partnered by the petitioner. Calculation can be done only through certain formula. The principles adopted for calculation is also on the basis of the testimony of the lottery stockists on the average maximum prize winning. The respondent need to adduce proof beyond reasonable doubt only during the trial of offence of money laundering. (i) The respondent has submitted that the Martin is also accused of committing an offence under section 420 IPC along with section 120(b) IPC and various provisions of Lotteries Regulation Act & Rules. It is submitted that Lotteries Regulations Act, 1998 not being a schedule offence under PMLA does not affect the registration of money laundering case. There is no requirement that all the offences alleged in the charges pressed by law enforcement agency should be a schedule offence. It is clear from the char....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e receivable by the Government of Sikkim. 9. It is submitted that any case to be made out under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, it can be done only as per the offences or classification of offences as detailed in the Schedule therein (hereinafter Scheduled Offences). Wherein the Lotteries (Regulation) Act and Rules are not under the purview of Scheduled Offences, any allegation with respect to the same can be initiated only by the respective Organizing Government or the Central Government and no other State is empowered do otherwise unless its own tickets are involved or it has suffered any loss. The case in hand is clear case in nature as the Lottery tickets are belong to Government of Sikkim who has not suffered any revenue as supported by the documents as well as settled in law. No due process of law or procedures as prescribed was followed in this case before making a conclusion by the Adjudicating Authority. Cheating is an offence but where does it come from and the whole cause of action is purported to come from Lotteries Act and Rules against which no investigation can be carried out under the PMLA and not maintainable under the law. 10. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue generated through it will be the revenue of Government of Sikkim and no share of revenue or responsibility was casted upon Government of Kerala. The Distributor/Kerala Promoter is liable to pay only draw charges (Levy of Tax) to the Government of Kerala against which no default was alleged by the Government of Kerala as the Distributor has paid the same appropriately right from the beginning. The entire allegation as raised by the Government of Kerala is only for barricading the other State Lotteries in the guise of default to the third person who is factually having no such allegation at all. 12.2 It is submitted on behalf of appellant that right from the lottery buyers, winners till the State of Sikkim, there is no complaint of non-payment of any prizes admittedly. There is no complaint of the State of Sikkim of any breach of any agreement and the intermediate agreements between the various links in the above chain have also not been alleged to have been breached. Thus, no complaint under Section 420 was filed since no person was deceived. 12.3 The allegation however, against the Appellant, stems out of the provisions of the Lotteries Act although the State....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PMLA. This PMLA investigation was started on the basis of the CBI chargesheet that the accused therein including the petitioner had caused wrongful loss to the government of Sikkim. This charge sheet is pending trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. As to why The State of Sikkim is not aggrieved is only a matter of speculation." 14. It is alleged, under these circumstances that the case in PMLA cannot be made out in absence of a crime and accordingly, when the Claimant to such proceeds of crime itself has clarified that such proceeds have no relationship to the alleged crime, the Respondent could not have unilaterally considered the same to be a "proceeds of crime". 15. On behalf of appellants, it is also submitted that even in case of non-payment of loans to banks, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs State of Gujarat and Another, 2019 SCC Online SC 196, that the mere inability of the borrower to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating. In the present case, the State of Sikkim has not even alleged that it has been cheated, which goes to the root of the matter and none ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he sale proceeds of the tickets. It is stated that for example, the Appellant has produced before the Adjudicating Authority various notifications of the Government of Sikkim notifying the above during the subject period which have not been taken into consideration. The most important feature relevant for the present case was the prize pool as notified in the notifications prescribing a prize pool of 76.63% & to 79.69%. 19. It is stated on behalf of appellant, the prize pool is on the basis as if all tickets have been ultimately sold to the general public. It being a lottery business there can be a situation that the sale proceeds from the sale of lotteries is lesser than the prizes distributed, thus, resulting in loss. However, in case, all the tickets are sold and the tickets containing the prize, the prizes are distributed, then only amount then remaining in the hands of the State of Sikkim, Distributor, promoter, Super Stockiest, Stockiest, Sub Stockiest, Agent, retailer and hawkers, would be the balance percentage being 23.37% to 20.31%. The State of Sikkim has not complained that its revenues have not been paid, the Appellant stated before the Adjudicating Authority tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... should only be the concern and the case we have in our hand. Entire allegation is with respect to the sale only in the State of Kerala during the subject period thus the sale of in other States cannot be brought into the picture. The Adjudicating Authority has not considered the Super and Special ticket prize amount while admittedly accounting the sales done in other State and arrived to the presumptive outcome which alone have inflated the liability. 22. The Appellant submits that the above statement destroys the entire case of the Respondent because the Notification of the State of Sikkim propagating the lottery scheme contains the above prizes, and the State of Sikkim not having complained as regards non-payment of above prizes, assumptions made by the Respondent cannot lead to an assumption of proceeds of crime. On this basis alone, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. The tickets are the exclusive property of the Government of Sikkim which have official notified in its gazette including Super and Special ticket prizes, upon which the Adjudicating Authority has been relying on the notification partially and ignoring the remaining portion of the Gazette Notification. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-section (1) of section 5 or retention of property or [record seized or frozen under section 17 or section 18 and record a finding to that effect, whereupon such attachment or retention or freezing of the seized or frozen property] or record shall- (a) continue during the pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under this Act before a court or under the corresponding law of any other country, before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction outside India, as the case* may be; and" 26. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, ld. counsel appearing on behalf of appellants has submitted that the above Section 8(3)(a) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has been the subject matter of interpretation by this Tribunal in S.V. Srinivas v. Joint Director of Enforcement FPAPMLA- 446/BNG/2013. 27. Mr. Rohtagi and Dayan Krishan, ld. senior counsel have referred the judgement this Tribunal was pleased to note that the phrase 'pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under this Act' necessarily contemplates the existence of a Complaint before the Special Court, and thus no attachment can be confirmed under Section 8(3)(a) without a Complaint under Section 45 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled more than a year and eight months. It is stated by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Senior Advocate that on the date of confirmation of attachment, no charge-sheet under PMLA was filed/pending. It is also stated by Mr. Rohtagi that the respondent wishes to continue the attachment on that day but no proceedings under PMLA by the respondent were pending, therefore, it is apparent that the respondent has forgotten to file the charge-sheet since criminal liabilities are involved at the culminated of the proceedings. The said serious lapses cannot be condoned. 29. It is argued that through the subsequent Amendment of 2018, a substantive amendment was made to Section 8(3)(a) of the PMLA, 2002 to include for the first time, the pendency of investigation for a period of 90 days which mandates that even after confirming the attachment, still 90 days period is quashed to further investigate the matter and file the charge-sheet. This provision, however, did not affect previous cases. Thus, the amendment cannot be availed of by the Respondent because the impugned confirmation is dated 22.9.2016, which is much prior to the amendment, the un-amended Section 8 (3)(a) of the PMLA, 2002 is to applied in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent that they have their own independent mechanism regarding the investigation as well as for all investigations. As far as the mandatory provisions are concerned, it is settled law that the scheme of the Act has to be taken into consideration while interpreting the statute and different words should not be construed in isolation of the other sections of the statute, as well as the scheme of the statute. The Appellant has relied upon the following cases in support of its submissions. Since, it is a jurisdictional issue; the objection of Mr. N.K. Matta has no force. Mr. N.K. Matta has been given full opportunity to argue the appeals on this issue and as a matter of fact, he has fully argued The following are few decisions about interpretation of statute:- a) Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (AIR 1953 SC 83) at Paragraph 10 (Pg. 4 of Vol. I) "10. These arguments though somewhat plausible at first sight, do not appear to us to be sound or convincing. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that the language used by the Legislature is the true depository of the legislative intent, and that words and phrases occurring in a statute are to be taken not in an isolat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of India except the authorised dealer while a more generalised category is carved out which would include by any person, who may or may not be a resident of India, but who is not an authorised dealer. This, therefore, relates to the capacity of the person concerned. The third clause relates to the various modes which are annexed to the foreign exchange which can be tagged with the said person. The restriction suggests that any purchase or borrowing or selling or lending or otherwise transferring are various modes of contravention, and a residuary clause in that category includes when a person is said to have otherwise acquired foreign exchange. As to who is an authorised dealer and money-changer has been defined under the Act. The respondent 1 admittedly does not fall in that category. Similarly, admittedly no permission was obtained from the Reverse Bank and lastly fact that the respondent is not a resident of India would hardly make any difference since he can be covered by the other clause about his capacity as being a person not being an authorised dealer." e) Marubeni India v.. Special Director of Enforcement (MANU/DE/0404/2014) at Para 10, (Pg. 40 of Vol. I) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....November, 2016 under section 26 of the PMLA, 2002. Reply to the appeal was filed by the respondent on 23.1.2017. Along with the reply, the respondent has also filed the copy of the complaint under section 5(5) of PMLA. However, there was no clue about charge-sheet under section 45 of PMLA in the reply. Even, there is no discussion at all in the reply to appeal by the respondent. The appellant thereafter filed the rejoinder to the reply on 11.4.2017 whereby the appellant has challenged the validity of the order as well as the conduct of the respondent about the initiation of proceeding under PMLA. Obviously, by that time, no charge sheet under section 45 of PMLA was filed by the respondent. The pleadings were complete in the above said matter on 29.8.2017. After completion of the pleadings, it appears that the respondent without informing this tribunal, filed the charge-sheet before the Special Court(Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam) on 11.06.2018 under PMLA, 2002 (The Special Court constituted u/s 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 r/w Government of India Notification vide 372 E dated 5.2.2016). The copy of the prosecution complaint/charge-sheet was not filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to any scheduled offence before a court; It is evident from the language of Section 8(3)(a) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2009 (21 of 2009) that the attachment shall continue during the pendency of the proceedings relating to any scheduled offence before a court must exist in order to continuation of the attachment, otherwise attachment under PMLA stand lapsed, however, the proceedings under schedule offence shall continue. b) The amendment of provision of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003) as amended by The Finance Act, 2016 ( 28 of 2016),the language of Section 8(3)(a) of The Finance Act, 2016 (28 of 2016), the language of Section 8(3)(a) is read as under;_ (3) Where the Adjudicating Authority decides under sub-section (2) that any property is involved in money-laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the attachment of the property made under sub-section (1) of section 5 or retention of property or l[record seized or frozen under section 17 or section 18 and record a finding to that effect, whereupon such attachment or retention or freezing of the seized or frozen property or record shall- (a) c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Under amended provision, it is clear that after passing the confirmation order by the Adjudicating Authority, the attachment shall continue during investigation for a period not exceeding ninety days, meaning thereby additional period of ninety days for investigation is granted to the respondent irrespective of the earlier investigation is conducted before passing the provisional attachment order. In a way by virtue of the new amendment, ninety days period further granted for investigation, if so required, even without filing the charge-sheet. The said period is granted apart from the investigation already conducted by the respondent before passing the PAO. However, by reading of this provision, it is clear that after the expiry of ninety days, the charge-sheet is to be filed from the date of confirmation of order by the Adjudicating Authority, whether further investigation is done or not, but during 90 days period, attachment shall continue irrespective of any Act. d) There is further amendment in the said provision of section 8(3)(a) by The Finance Act, 2019 (7 of 2019). The said amendment reads as under: (3) Where the Adjudicating Authority decides unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 207-208 of the Finance Act, 2018. As per Section 207 of the Finance Act, 2018, the Central Government was required to notify the date for coming in to force of Section 208 of the said Act. Notification bearing no. G.S.R.383(E) dated19.4.2018 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, appointed "19.04.2018" as the date for coming into force of Section 208of the Finance Act,2018 which amended Section 8(3)(a) of the PMLA. Through Section 208(c) of the Finance Act, 2018, the following amendment was made: "(c) in section 8,- (i) in sub-section (3), in clause (a), after the words "'continue during", the words "investigation for a period not exceeding ninety days or" shall be inserted; (ii) in sub-section (8), after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted namely:- "Provided further that the Special Court may, if it thinks fit, consider the claim of the claimant for the purposes of restoration of such properties during the trial of the case in such manner as may be prescribed.";" 40. Section 45 of PMLA provides that special courts shall not take cognizance of any offence under PMLA, except....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....namely, that the seizure or attachment is preceded by the concerned authority having reason to believe that such properties are proceeds of crime or are otherwise related to crime. Further, such reasons to believe must be formed on the basis of material in possession of the concerned officer and must be recorded in writing. In addition, such orders cannot be extended beyond the period of one hundred and eighty days, within which the Adjudicating Authority has to examine the matter and pass an order after issuing notice to the concerned persons and after affording the concerned person full opportunity to be heard. Any person aggrieved by any such order of the Adjudicating Authority is entitled to prefer an appeal to the appellate tribunal constituted under Section 25 of the Act. 57. It is axiomatic that no order of freezing can be passed except in accordance with the provisions of Section 17(1A) of the PMLA. 58. In terms of Section 73 of the PMLA, the Central Government is empowered to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the PMLA. In exercise of such powers, the Central Government has notified the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Forms, Search and Seizure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essary orders with regard to the said property. In terms of Section 457 of the Cr.P.C., whenever a property is seized by any police officer and is reported to the Magistrate, the Magistrate is empowered to make such orders as he thinks fit in respect of disposal of the property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof. In cases where such person cannot be ascertained, the Magistrate can pass orders in respect of the custody and production of such property. 63. It is at once clear that scheme of seizure, including the checks and balances in exercise of such power, as contemplated under the Cr.P.C. is wholly inconsistent with the scheme of the provisions under the PMLA. 64. Powers of seizure of properties is a draconian power. Grant of such authoritarian and drastic powers, without commensurate checks and balances, would militate against the principle of rule of law engrafted in the constitution of India. A police officer does not possess unfettered rights to freeze any asset without the same being reported immediately to a Magistrate. The party aggrieved, thus, has immediate recourse in respect of the said action of freezing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the two enactments can subsist and be implemented simultaneously. It is apparent that the scheme of effecting provisional attachment and seizure of property under the PMLA is wholly inconsistent with the one as enacted under the Cr.P.C. 68. In Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank and Anr.: (2018) 1 SCC 407, the Supreme Court had examined the question of repugnancy between two enactments, namely, the Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions Act), 1958 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the perspective of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court had referred to various decisions and culled out the principles with regard to repugnancy between two enactments. Although the decision was rendered in an altogether different context -whether the provisions of the central legislation would override a state enactment - the principles of inconsistency between two enactments as noticed by the Supreme Court would be equally applicable to determine whether the provisions of Section 102 Cr.P.C. are inconsistent with the provisions of the PMLA. In that case, the Supreme Court has referred to various decisions to set out the principles on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t recording reasons. Further, there are strict timelines provided under the PMLA. The orders of provisional attachment and/or seizure and/or freezing cannot extend beyond the period of 180 days. The Director of the Enforcement Directorate (or the officer authorized by him) is required to file a complaint by seeking extension of the period of retention from the adjudicating authority within a period of thirty days from passing such order. However, this safeguard would also be rendered meaningless if the Enforcement Directorate's contention is to be accepted; the Directorate could - as has been done in this case - freeze the assets without recording reasons and without making any application or complaint to the Adjudicating Authority. This Court is unable to accept that even in cases where the Director of the Enforcement Directorate has reasons to believe that the property is proceeds of crime, he can provisionally attach the same only for a period of one hundred and eighty days, but in cases where he has mere suspicion that the property in question is proceeds of crime, he can without recording any reasons, without issuance of any notice and without any obligation to make a complain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cers. The petitioners had contended that such conditions of service could not be framed by administrative circulars but necessitated framing Regulations under Section 58 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The Supreme Court repelled the said contention and held that under Section 7(2) of the Act, the Central Board had the power to provide for service conditions of the bank staff by issuing administrative circulars as long as they did not impinge upon the Regulations made under Section 58 of the said Act. The power of an employer to fix service conditions cannot be equated to police powers. 74. In view of the above, the contention that officers of the Enforcement Directorate could issue orders of freezing under Sectionof Cr.P.C. is rejected and the communications issued by the Enforcement Directorate to BSE are, plainly, without authority of law." 44. The said judgement has been upheld by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court at New Delhi. 45. Thus, it is clear after going through the scheme of the Act that being a Special Act, all PMLA proceedings are to be conducted within the four corners of Act. These are stringent provisions. Criminal liabilities are....