TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 933
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion directing respondent Nos. 1, 6 and 7 to consider and take action in Ext. P5 representation as per law within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice ; and (iii) Such other writ, orders or directions deem fit on facts and in the interest of justice." 2. Petitioner submits that a money heist had occurred within the limits of Kodakara Police Station and that Crime No. 146 of 2021 dated 07.04.2021 concerning the same had been registered in the said Police Station. According to the petitioner, since the said heist has hawala and money laundering overtones involving political leaders, he has preferred Ext. P3 representation dated 24.04.2024 and Ext. P5 representation dated 28.04.2024 before the concerned respondents inter alia seeking registration of a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2002 Act'). Petitioner laments that no action has been taken by the concerned respondents on his said representations and since according to him the nature of crime involved has ramifications for the economic security of the nation, he has moved this Writ Petition seeking the above prayers. 3. When this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocate appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Jaishankar V. Nair learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, Sri. T.C. Krishna learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent. We have also heard the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 6 to 9. 8. Since the question of locus standi of the petitioner to prefer the Writ Petition has been challenged by the all the respondents, and the same being a question that goes to the very root of the matter, we deem it fit to consider the same at the outset. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera v. Union of India and others (W.P.(Crl.) No.114 of 1991) and he contends that in defining the rule of locus standi in public interest litigations, no 'rigid litmus test' can be applied and that the dominant object of public interest litigation is to ensure observance of the provisions of the Constitution or the law which can be best achieved to advance the cause of community or disadvantaged groups and individuals. Basing on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nLine SC 754], wherein the Supreme Court has held that a third party, who is a total stranger to the prosecution, has no locus standi in criminal matters and has no right to whatsoever to file a petition in public interest. In Manohar Lal v. Vinesh Anand and others [(2001) 5 SCC 407 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1322 : 2001 SCC OnLine SC 634], it has been held that doctrine of locus standi is totally foreign to criminal jurisprudence and similarly in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others [(2010) 3 SCC 402 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 81 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 807 : 2010 SCC OnLine SC 196], the Supreme Court has held that public interest litigation is available only where larger public interests are involved and when the matter is so grave and urgent that it must take precedence over other matters. The dictum in Swaraj Abhiyan and another v. Union of India and others [(2017) 11 SCC 237 : 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1417], wherein the Supreme Court has held that when an issue takes the colour of political nature or a political protagonist approaches the court in the guise of a public interest litigation to settle political scores, it loses the character of public interest litigation, is also reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....91 KHC 1163 : AIR 1993 SC 892] which reads as follows: "Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case of this nature registered against specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants". The above proposition has been affirmed by the Apex Court in Sanjai Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2021) 15 SCC 660 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1027]. 13. In view of the above, we find that the petitioner has failed to reveal any locus standi to prefer or maintain the above Writ Petition as a public interest litigation. The objections raised by the respondents in their statements regarding lack of locus standi in the petitioner has legal merit and are accordingly accepted and upheld. 14. We are convinced that even if we were to hold that the Writ Petition is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, the reliefs sought for cannot be granted. 15. Ext. P3 representation is addressed to officials of the Enforcement Directorate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....guilty of offence of money-laundering. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that, - (i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, namely:- (a) concealment; or (b) possession; or (c) acquisition; or (d) use; or (e) projecting as untainted property; or (f) claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever; (ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever." 17. To understand the scope of the proceedings under the 2002 Act we may usefully refer to two judgments of the Supreme Court namely (i) Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. UOI, [2022 SCC OnLine SC 929] & (ii) Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e fact situation so warrant......" "181. .......It is also correct to say that there is no such requirement under the 2002 Act or for that matter, that there is nothing like investigation of a crime of money-laundering as per the scheme of 2002 Act. The investigation, however, is to track the property being proceeds of crime and to attach the same for being dealt with under the 2002 Act. Stricto sensu, it is in the nature of an inquiry in respect of civil action of attachment. Nevertheless, since the inquiry in due course ends in identifying the offender who is involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and then to prosecute him......" 18. In Pavana Dibbur (supra) after referring extensively to Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) it was held:- "15. The condition precedent for the existence of proceeds of crime is the existence of a scheduled offence. On this aspect, it is necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. In paragraph 253 of the said decision, this Court held thus: "253. Tersely put, it is only such property which is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led offence). It would be an offence of money-laundering to indulge in or to assist or being party to the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime; and such process or activity in a given fact situation may be a continuing offence, irrespective of the date and time of commission of the scheduled offence. In other words, the criminal activity may have been committed before the same had been notified as scheduled offence for the purpose of the 2002 Act, but if a person has indulged in or continues to indulge directly or indirectly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived or obtained from such criminal activity even after it 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....