TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to as "the PMLA"). Challenge has also been thrown to proceedings initiated against the petitioners pursuant to ECIR/01/SRZO/2011 dated 29.04.2011, which are stated to be pending before the Designated Court. 3) In OWP No.820/2017, the petitioners have challenged the proceedings initiated against them pursuant to ECIR/01/SRZO/2011 dated 29.02.2011, as also the aforesaid ECIR. 4) Vide writ petition (OWP) No.1194/2011, the petitioners have challenged the order of summoning issued by respondent No.4-Director of Enforcement, against them with a further direction for restraining the respondents from interfering in the cases already investigated and prosecuted by the J&K Police. 5) It appears that the petitioners are facing trial before the Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 50 and 323 of the Constitution. It has been further contended that the respondents have subjected the petitioners to prosecution under the provisions of the PMLA on the same allegations and facts which are subject matter of criminal challan pending against them and that this amounts to double jeopardy. On this basis, it is being contended that the action of the respondents is unconstitutional. It has also been contended that the occurrence which is subject matter of the impugned proceedings dates back to a period when offences under ULA(P) Act had not been included in the Schedule to the PMLA, as such, the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the PMLA are without jurisdictio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the PMLA as well as under ULA(P) Act which are quite distinct from each other, as such, there is no question of double jeopardy. The respondents have denied that they have committed any acts of harassment against the petitioners. 9) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10) So far as the issue as regards the constitutional validity of the provisions of the PMLA is concerned, the same has been finally decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others vs. Union of India and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 929. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has upheld the constitutional validity of various provisions of the PMLA. The judgment of the Supre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same offence. The offences under ULA(P) Act are quite distinct from the offence under the PMLA. The Supreme Court has in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary's case (supra), while interpreting the provisions contained in Section 3 of the PMLA, which defines the offence of 'money laundering' observed as under: 269. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money-laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form - be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pon by the petitioners in support of their contention, have no applicability to the instant case because the said provisions govern the matters pertaining to framing of charge and trial of cases relating to series of acts connected to same transaction. 17) It has been next contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the offences under ULA(P) Act were included in the Schedule to the PMLA by virtue of Notification bearing S.O. No.1388(E) dated 1st June, 2009 whereas the alleged activities, on the basis of which petitioners have been subjected to prosecution under the PMLA, are stated to have taken place on 10th March, 2009. On the basis of these facts, it has been contended that the respondents cannot initiate proceedings against t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been notified as scheduled offence, may be liable to be prosecuted for offence of money laundering under the 2002 Act - for continuing to possess or conceal the proceeds of crime (fully or in part) or retaining possession thereof or uses it in trenches until fully exhausted. The offence of money laundering is not dependent on or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence or if we may say so the predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime. These ingredients are intrinsic in the original provision (Section 3, as amended until 2013 and were in force till 31.7.2019); and the same has been merely explained and clarifi....