TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 1145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... COMMON ORDER 1. Crl. M.P. No. 1411/2020 is filed by the petitioner/A-3 (Jagati Publications Ltd.) and Crl.M.P.No. 1412/2020 is filed by the petitioner/A-2 (V. Vijay Sai Reddy) under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. requesting to take up the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence i.e. C.C. No. 9/2012 before S.C. No. 1/2016. Crl. M.P. No. 1414/2020 is filed by the petitioner/A-2 (V. Vijay Sai Reddy) and Crl. M.P. No. 1415/2020 is filed by the petitioner/A-3 (Jagati Publications Ltd.) under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. requesting to take up the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence i.e. C.C. No. 10/2012 before S.C. No. 2/2016. Crl. M.P. No. 1416/2020 is filed by the petitioner/A-2 (V. Vijay Sai Reddy) and Crl. M.P. No. 1417/2020 is filed by the petitioner/A-5 (Jagati Publications Ltd.) under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. requesting to take up the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence i.e. C.C. No. 24/2013 before S.C. No. 2/2017. Crl. M.P. No. 1418/2020 is filed by the petitioner/A-2 (V. Vijay Sai Reddy) and Crl. M.P. No. 1419/2020 is filed by the petitioner/A-5 (Jagati Publications Ltd.) under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. requesting to take up the hearing on charges in the schedule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aneously with C.C. No. 9/2012, accordingly on 17.01.2020 this Court passed orders recording that "trial of scheduled offence and trial of offence punishable under PMLA be proceeded simultaneously." (e) This Court commenced/continued arguments in C.C. No. 9/2012/predicate offence after the orders in Crl. M.P. No. 1891/2017 dt.17.01.2020, in pursuance of the earlier orders made in Crl. M.P. No. 677/2013 dt.19.12.2014. The arguments made were incomplete and were stopped midway in view of the outbreak of COVID Pandemic and needs to start/resume at same point. (f) The Court's direction to now commence S.C. No. 1/2016 would be a departure from earlier orders and procedure adopted by the orders of this Court. This Court has fixed a procedure for hearing of the matters pursuant to orders in Crl. M.P. No. 677/2013 by further orders made on 17.01.2020. The two orders have set the procedural basis for the conduct of cases which is in consonance with the principles of right to fair trial. No occasion or reason has arisen for making any abrupt departure from the settled procedure, particularly in view of the orders already passed in Crl.M.P. No. 1891/2017, a simultaneous hearing would mea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....planation to clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act, which is as under : "Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that,-- (i) the jurisdiction of the Special Court while dealing with the offence under this Act, during investigation, enquiry or trial under this Act, shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offence, and the trial of both sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as joint trial;" (f) As per the above provision, it clearly sets out that the trial for the offence of money laundering is independent trial and it is governed by its own provisions and it need not get interfered by the trial of scheduled offence. (g) Petitioner has taken plea of the order dt.17.01.2020 of this Court wherein it is mentioned that "trial of scheduled offence and trial of offence punishable under PMLA be proceeded simultaneously". The order of this Court has been misinterpreted and misrepresented to suit their convenience and stall the ongoing trial proceedings in S.C.No. 1/2016. The said order is to the effect that trial of scheduled offence and trial of offence under PMLA to be proceeded simultaneous....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner's counsel has filed a memo stating that to avoid any ambiguity in the prayer clause, the present memo is filed seeking to read the prayer in all the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions in the following manner : "Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to take up the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence i.e. CC.No. 9 of 2012, C.C.No. 10 of 2012, C.C.No. 24 of 2013, C.C.No. 26 of 2013 and C.C.No. 27 of 2013, and the offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 i.e. SC.No. 1 of 2016, SC.No. 2 of 2016, SC.No. 2 of 2017, SC.No. 1 of 2018 and SC.No. 2 of 2018 simultaneously either by hearing both the matters together or in immediate succession in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case." 5. Heard both sides through video conference and perused the record. 6. Now, the points for determination are : (1) Whether the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence i.e. C.C. No. 9/2012, C.C.No. 10/2012, C.C.No. 24/2013, C.C.No. 26/ 2013 and C.C.No. 27/2013 be taken up before S.C.No. 1/2016, S.C.No. 2/2016, S.C. No. 2/2017, S.C. No. 1/2018 and S.C.No. 2/ 2018 (As per the prayer in the original petition) ? (2) Whether the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2019 SCC OnLine Ker 4546 = (2019) 4 KLT 820 = (2020) 372 ELT 209.] 6. Ramraj Choudhury vs. King-Emperor [1945 (Vol.XXIV) ILR 604.] 7. Kuriakose Chacko vs. State [1950 SCC OnLine Ker 7 = 1951 Cri LJ 470.] 8. Aleem vs. The State of A.P. [1994 (2) A.P.L.J. 451 (HC).] 9. ED vs. A. Raja and others [C.C.No. 1/2014, dt.21.12.2017 in the Court of O.P.Saini, Spl. Judge, CBI (04)/PMLA (2G Spectrum Cases), New Delhi.] 10. P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement [(2019) 9 SCC 24.] 11. B.R.V.S atyanarayana vs. The State [1976 SCC OnLine AP 111 = 1977 CriLJ 1038.] 12. Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [1985 (1) SCC 422.] 13. Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India and another [(2018) 11 SCC 1.] 8. Sri E.Uma Maheswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner/A-2 (Sri V. Vijay Sai Reddy) in Crl.M.P.No. 1412/2020, Crl.M.P.No. 1414/2020, Crl.M.P. No. 1416/2020, Crl.M.P.No. 1418/2020 and Crl.M.P.No. 1420/2020 has contended that commencement of S.C.No. 1/2016, S.C.No. 2/2016, S.C.No. 2/2017, S.C.No. 1/ 2018 and S.C.No. 2/2018 before scheduled offences (CCs) would be a departure from the earlier orders and procedure adopted by the Court in Crl.M.P.No. 677/2013, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew Delhi vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd [Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 8750 of 2014, dt.15.09.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.]. 22. Government of India & Ors vs. Indian Tobacco Association [Judgment in Appeal (civil) 5196 of 2005, dt.23.08.2005 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.]. 10. Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel in reply stated that if the contention of the ED is accepted, it supports his contention that both the offences i.e. predicate offence/scheduled offence and offence under money laundering be tried together, but money laundering cannot be tried ahead of the predicate/scheduled offence. Explanation to Section 44(1)(d) of PML Act does not say that money laundering offence should precede further to predicate offence. Stand-alone is meant for the ingredients of the offences but not for the purpose of treating it as a separate offence. Money laundering offence starts at the end of the predicate/scheduled offence. Harbouring of offence is a stand-alone offence. 11. (i) Before answering the points, it is apt to say the cases filed by CBI and Enforcement Directorate against the petitioners. (ii) (a) CBI, Hyderabad has filed charge sheet in R.C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o A-10 under Section 200 Cr.P.C r/w Section 45, 3, 4, 8(5) of PMLA, 2002 before this Court and the same is numbered as S.C.No.2/2017. (b) Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy/A-1, Sri V. Vijay Sai Reddy/A-2, M/s. Jagati Publications Ltd./A-5 in S.C.No.2/2017 have filed three separate applications under Section 309 of Cr.P.C requesting to defer all further proceedings in the above said SC till the conclusion of the adjudication of the scheduled offence (C.C.No.24/2013) vide Crl.M.P.No.2104/2017, Crl.M.P.No.2105/2017 and Crl.M.P.No.2106/2017, the above said applications came to be dismissed vide common order dt.17.01.2020. (v) (a) CBI, Hyderabad has filed charge sheet in R.C.19(A)/2011-CBI/HYD against Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy/A-1 and eight others and the same is numbered as C.C.No.26/2013. Sri V. Vijay Sai Reddy is shown as A-2 and M/s. Jagati Publications Ltd. is shown as A-5 in the above said CC. Enforcement Directorate basing on the scheduled offence filed a private complaint against A-1 to A-11 under Section 200 Cr.P.C r/w Section 45, 3, 4, 8(5) of PMLA, 2002 before this Court and the same is numbered as S.C.No.1/2018. (b) Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy/A-1, Sri V. Vijay Sai Reddy/A-2,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Public Prosecutor for ED) sought time to argue the matter on hearing on charges, thereby all the matters stand posted to 12.10.2020. On 12.10.2020 the present set of applications came to be filed in all the SCs u/s. 362 of Cr.P.C. (ii) For brevity and convenience sake, Section 362 of Cr.P.C. is as under : "Section 362 of The Code of Criminal Procedure. Court not to alter judgment.- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error." 14. (i) Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy/A-1 (in all the SCs), Sri V. Vijay Sai Reddy/ A-2 (in all the SCs), M/s. Jagati Publications Ltd./A-3 (in S.C.No.1/2016 and S.C.No.2/2016) and A-5 (in S.C.No.2/2017 and S.C.No.1/2018) and M/s. Caramel Asia Holdings Pvt. Ltd./A-9 (in S.C.No.2/2018) have filed separate set of applications in all the SCs under Section 309 Cr.P.C., requesting to defer all further proceedings in all the SCs till the conclusion of the adjudication in the scheduled offence, or in alternate till completion of investigation in ECIR.No.9/HZO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Court and no occasion has arisen for making any abrupt departure from the settled procedure. Decisions cited by the petitioner/M/s. Jagati Publications Ltd. :- (i) In Binod Kumar Sinha's case(1), the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand has held as under : "No doubt it is true that procedure relating to investigation, enquiry etc. of the scheduled offence is different from the procedure of the investigation of the offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act but that difficulty would have arisen when the question would have been there for clubbing of the charges. Here, the point is never related to clubbing of the charges, rather the point is whether the Special Court can proceed simultaneously with the trial of the scheduled offence as well as trial of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Keeping in view the provision as is enshrined in Section 3 postulating therein that whoever is connected with the proceeds of the crime projecting it as untainted property would be committing offence of Money Laundering Act and further that the proceeds of crime must have been derived or obtained, directly or indirectly by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the offences u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)d) of the PC Act and Section 120B, 420, 468, 409, 477A IPC. At that point in time, the investigation pertaining to 66 accounts was in process and subsequently CBI filed a closure report dated 08.08.2014. In the said closure report the reason specified by CBI was that the investigation did not reveal any wrongful loss to the bank or government due to the said 66 accounts and no offence was made out against the petitioner. Another reason specified in the said closure report is that the said accounts and disproportionate assets were a subject matter of investigation by the SIT UP Police in FIR No.04/2011 dated 03.05.2011." (iii) In Rajiv Channa's case [W.P.(C).No.6293/2014, dt.19.09.2014 of High Court of Delhi.], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held at para Nos.13, 15, 18 and 19 as under: "Para 13. It is apparent from the above definition of the expression "proceeds of crime" that existence of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is the substratal condition for existence of proceeds of crime and the applicability of the provisions of Section 5 of the PMLA. Essentially, the edifice of PMLA rests on the foundation of existence o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling supplementary-affidavit have given details of the properties which have been allegedly acquired by the petitioner during his tenure as Chairman of the society. Para 36. .......I have examined the various case laws cited by the petitioner as well as the opposite parties and the legal position which emerges out after study of the various case laws, is that a person can be prosecuted for the offence of money laundering even if he is not guilty of scheduled offences and his property can also be provisionally attached irrespective of the fact as to whether he has been found guilty of the scheduled offences. The prosecution is not required to wait for the result of the conviction for the scheduled offences in order to initiate proceedings under section 3 of the PML Act." (v) In Inspector of Police, CBI's case [2019 SCC OnLine Ker 4546 = (2019) 4 KLT 820 = (2020) 372 ELT 209.], the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held at para Nos.10, 12 and 32 as under : "Para 10. .........The scheme of the Act clearly shows that, Money Laundering, though an offence by itself, is inextricably connected to a scheduled offences (predicate offences). The schedule discloses that the predicate o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and decided in the same Sessions Case, without postponing the same for consideration by a separate case. By adopting this method, no prejudice is caused to petitioner. Further, if the petitioner/A-5 is found guilty of the offence under section 411 IPC for receiving stolen property from A-1 to A-4, it automatically follows that the ingredients for the offence under section 212 IPC are established against the petitioner for harbouring A-1 to A-4, who committed the offences of robbery, punishable under Sec. 392 IPC." (ix) In ED's case [C.C.No.1/2014, dt.21.12.2017 in the Court of O.P.Saini, Spl. Judge, CBI (04)/PMLA (2G Spectrum Cases), New Delhi.], has held at para Nos.159, 160, 162, 166, 167 as under: "Para 159..........Thus, for commission of an offence of money-laundering, there should be a scheduled offence and out of that offence, the accused must have derived or obtained proceeds of crime and having obtained such proceeds, must have projected or claimed it as untainted. Para 160. Thus, "Proceeds of crime" is the essence and an indispensable element of the offence of money-laundering. It is the core constituent of the offence. Without the existence of proceeds of crime,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, be said that the appellant is proceeded against in violation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India for the alleged commission of the acts which was not an offence as per law then in existence." (xi) In B.R.V. Satyanarayana's case [1976 SCC OnLine AP 111 = 1977 CriLJ 1038.], the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held at para Nos.6 and 7 as under : "Para 6. It is an universal principle of law that when a matter has been finally disposed of by a Court, such court is functus officio in respect of the matter the absence of a direct statutory provision, the Court which became functus officio cannot entertain afresh prayer for the same relief unless and until in the previous order of final disposal has been set aside. It is this cardinal principle of universal application that has been incorporated in section 369 of the old Code and section 362 of the new Code. If an application for a certain prayer based on certain facts has been disposed of by the Court, entertaining a fresh application with the same prayer on the same facts is not permissible as such course involves the cancellation or alteration or review of the previous order unless there is a specific provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to mean any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence (which is referred to in our judgment as the predicate offence. Thus, whosoever is involved as aforesaid, in a process or activity connected with "proceeds of crime" as defined, which would include concealing, possessing, acquiring or using such property, would be guilty of the offence, provided such persons also project or claim such property as untainted property. Section 3, therefore, contains all the aforesaid ingredients, and before somebody can be adjudged as guilty under the said provision, the said person must not only be involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, but must also project or claim it as being untainted property. Para 13. Under Section 5 of the Act, attachment of such property takes place so that such property may be brought back into the economy. Coming now to Chapter VII of the Act with which we are really concerned, Section 43 lays down that Special Courts to try offences under the Act are to be designated for such area or areas or for such case or class or group of cases as may be spec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erials available including examination of witnesses and documents. Therefore, this Court cannot invoke Section 482 of the http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.NO.9796 of 2019 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings at this stage. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not to be done by a Court by drop of the hat but only when a situation warrants. We are not inclined to hold that the trial, if conducted, would be an empty formality." "Para 19. Accordingly, the above Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that the Principal Session Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, shall not be influenced by any of the observation made by us in this order while disposing of C.C.No.56 of 2018. We further direct the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.9796 of 2019 Chennai, to expedite the trial and dispose of C.C.No.56 of 2018 within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." (b) M/s. VGN Developers Pvt. Ltd. aggrieved by the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras filed Special Leave Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Special....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndependent offence. A reference to criminal activity relating to a schedule offence has wider connotation and it may extend to a person, who is connected with criminal activity relating to schedule offence, but may not be the offender of schedule offence. It is in this background, it has to be necessarily held that money laundering is a stand alone offence under the PML Act. In this background, when Section 44 of the PML Act is perused, it would clearly indicate that special court may take cognizance of the offence upon a complaint by authorized signatory, which means cognizance will be taken of an offence which is separate and independent. The object of issuance of summons is to trace or ascertain the proceeds of crime if any and to take steps in that regard like attaching the proceeds of crime if proved in a given case." "Para 27. Even in case of a person who is not booked for a scheduled offence but is later booked and subsequently acquitted for the offences punishable under different enactments prescribed under Part ‗A' to Part ‗C' of the Schedule, still such person can be proceeded under PML Act. In other words, proceedings can be against persons who are accused....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns for the purpose of this applications are Section 2(1)(u), 3, 43(2), 44(1)(a), 44(1)(c), 44(1)(d) which are as under : Section 2(1)(u). 'proceeds of crime' means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad; Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that ‗proceeds of crime' including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence; (Ins. by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, sec. 192(iii) (w.e.f. 1-8-2019). Section 3. Offence of money-laundering.--Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as it applies to a trial before a Court of Session. Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that,-- (Ins. By the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, sec. 199(ii) (w.e.f. 1-8-2019). (i) the jurisdiction of the Special Court while dealing with the offence under this Act, during investigation, enquiry or trial under this Act, shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offence and the trial of both sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as joint trial. 18. (i) Respondent/ED has filed counters in Crl.M.P.No.1891/2017 in S.C.No.1/2016 (filed by M/s. Jagati Publications Ltd.) and other connected petitions filed by Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, Sri V. Vijay Sai Reddy on 01.09.2017. It is stated in the counters filed by respondent/ED in the above said applications that "Respondent/ED Department intended to have fair trial by way of having common/ joint trial of both predicate offence and offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, however the petitioners are objecting for such fair trial". The above said applications filed by the petitioners were under Section 309 Cr.P.C requesting to defer all further proceedings in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the predicate/ scheduled offence (C.C.No.24/2013) and proceedings against him are quashed by the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad vide CRLP.No.5914/2016, dt.04.02.2019. (b) Sri Adityanath Das is shown as A-10 in money laundering case (S.C.No.2/2017) and the complaint against him is returned as per the common orders of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad vide CRLP.No.3988/2016, CRLP.No.11942/2018 and W.P.No.2253/2018, dt.21.01.2019. (iii) M/s. India Cements Ltd. is shown as A-7 in the predicate/scheduled offence (C.C.No.24/2013) and proceedings against the company are stayed by the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad vide IA.No.2/2020 in CRLP.No.12989/2016, dt.02.03.2020 for a period of four weeks. M/s. India Cements Ltd. is also shown as A-7 in money laundering case (S.C.No.2/2017). (iv) M/s. Janani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is shown as A-8 in money laundering case (S.C.No.2/2017). CBI has not prosecuted/not booked M/s. Janani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in the predicate/scheduled offence (C.C.No.24/2013). 20. It is germane to note that M/s. Janani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is shown as A-10 and M/s.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he roles played by each of the accused in respect of money laundering offence is clearly depicted in the complaint and it cannot be said that facts in scheduled offence and the facts in money laundering offence are one and the same. (iv) It is true the complaint of money laundering emanates from the registration of a scheduled offence. The investigation under the scheduled offence is altogether different with that of the investigation done under PML Act, and it cannot be said that predicate offence hinges upon the offence of money laundering. PML Act, 2002, further clarifies that a person who has not committed a scheduled offence, can be prosecuted for the offence of money laundering. Under Section 24 of PML Act, the burden of proving proceeds of crime is that on the accused, which is a matter of trial. 23. (i) On careful reading of Section 43(2) of PML Act, it does not contemplate a trial of predicate/scheduled offence and the offence of money laundering simultaneously. The section only says that while trying an offence under the Act, a Special Court shall also try an offence, other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) with which the accused may under the Code of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded proviso is brought in Section 14(1)(J-2) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 through which Vijay was disqualified to hold the post of Member of Grampanchayat, Sarpanch and as Councillor by Additional Collector, Jalna. An appeal preferred there against is dismissed by Additional Divisional Commissioner by order dt.02.08.2004, thereafter a Writ Petition is preferred before the High Court and the same was dismissed. Vijay has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that appellant (Vijay) was elected in terms of the provisions of statute. The right to be elected was created by a statute and thus can be taken away by a statute, the provision gives a retrospective effect and appeal was dismissed. (b) The matter fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is with regard to amended proviso to Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, but not the word "Explanation". The ratio of the said decision has no application in the present case. (ii) (a) In Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Delhi [Judgment in Civil Appeal No.8750 of 2014, dt.15.09.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.], the question of law which has fallen for consideration before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tutory provision. Para 52. Thus, from a conspectus of the authorities referred to above, it is manifest that the object of an Explanation to a statutory provision is - (a) to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself. (b) where there is any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment, to clarify the same so as to make it consistent with the dominant object which it seems to subserve. (c) to provide an additional support to the dominant object of the Act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful. (d) an Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the Act it can help or assist the Court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment, and (e) it cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person under a statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming an hindrance in the interpretation of the same. 29. The opening words used in the Explanation to Section 2(1)(u), 3, 44(1)(d) are "for the removal of doubt, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on record, for convenience of all the accused, all the cases i.e. CCs and SCs are posted on every working Friday since my predecessor's time, that does not mean predicate/scheduled offence and the offence of money laundering are tried simultaneously and the procedure adopted by this Court is deviated. Predicate/scheduled offence and the offence of money laundering are not inextricably linked to each of the offences. 35. (i) (a) The facts in Arun Kumar Mishra [2015 SCC OnLine Del 8658 = (2015) 2 DLT (Cri) 731.] are that CBI-SPE, Dehradun has registered RC.No.0072011A003, dt.02.01.2011 against five persons under IPC and P.C. Act, alleging that false entries are made in 71 Accounts of Punjab National Bank during November, 2005 to December, 2016. CBI has filed charge sheet in the first set of 5 Accounts on 09.09.2011 before Special Judge, Dehradun against A.K.Mishra and 2 others. Regarding 66 Accounts, CBI has filed closure report on 08.08.2014. A.K.Mishra has challenged the charge sheet dt.09.09.2011 by moving quash petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand and the same was allowed on 13.10.2014. Basing on the R.C. registered by CBI, ED has registered a case bearing EC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (04)/PMLA (2G Spectrum Cases), New Delhi.] , the matter is sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal, hence requires no answer. (vii) In P. Chidambaram [(2019) 9 SCC 24.] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "It cannot, therefore, be said that the appellant is proceeded against in violation of Article 20(1) of Constitution of India." The ratio laid down in the above said decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is on power under, to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, which has no application to the present case. (viii) In B.R.V. Satyanarayana [1976 SCC OnLine AP 111 = 1977 CriLJ 1038.] Revision was dismissed on 11.05.1976 and by order dt.08.06.1976 it cancelled the order (dt.11.05.1976) and admitted the revision on Court's file, thereafter the matter is referred to a Bench. The Hon'ble Bench has held that the order dt.11.05.1976 is a final order, it cannot be altered or reviewed in view of Section 362 of Cr.P.C and dismissed the revision. The above said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. (ix) The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh [1985 (1) SCC 422.] is clubbing and consolidating two....