In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court held that a special court designated to hear money laundering cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is empowered to try the scheduled offences from which the PMLA offence stemmed. The decision was made by a single-judge bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh.
The judge referred to Section 44 of the PMLA and the explanations to it, which clarify what offences can be tried by the special courts. The Court found that the legislative intention was that one and the same court would try both the scheduled offences and the PMLA offences. Therefore, a harmonious construction of the provisions could only lead to the conclusion that the special court trying offences under the PMLA would be the court which would try the scheduled offences.
The Court also pointed out that the transactions and factual foundation for both the money laundering offence and the connected scheduled offences would be the same, and a trial for either category of offence would have an impact on the other.
The case before the Court concerned a criminal case falling in the scheduled offence category to be tried along with the money laundering case registered under the PMLA. The petitioners had challenged the March 2021 order on the ground that the law does not call for an automatic transfer of the trial in a scheduled offence just because a PMLA case was also lodged subsequently.
The accused (petitioner) was initially booked under charges of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery by way of five First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged in May 2011. Subsequently, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which was investigating these cases, filed chargesheets against the petitioner and others accused in the case. Three more FIRs were lodged between 2011 to 2012.
Based on the chargesheets and the fact that the offences alleged were scheduled ones, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) lodged a money laundering case against the accused persons. In December 2018, the ED moved an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate hearing case concerning the scheduled offences to transfer the said case to a special PMLA court.
The Magistrate passed an order transferring the case. This was objected to by the accused by way of the instant plea before the High Court. However, Justice Ghosh found no merit in the contentions of the accused and dismissed their plea.
The decision is significant as it clarifies the jurisdiction of special courts designated to hear money laundering cases under the PMLA. It also highlights the need for a harmonious construction of the provisions of the PMLA to ensure the efficient and effective administration of justice in cases of money laundering and related offences.
The ruling is likely to have far-reaching implications for similar cases and will provide guidance to lawyers, prosecutors, and judges dealing with cases of money laundering and related offences. It will also help to streamline the trial process and avoid unnecessary delays and confusion in cases where both PMLA and scheduled offences are involved.
Overall, the decision is a welcome development in the fight against money laundering and related offences and will help to ensure that those responsible for such crimes are brought to justice in a timely and efficient manner.
