Supreme Court: Whether the court should consider gravity of offence alongwith triple test before releasing any accused on regular bail?

Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the Rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the Accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of "grave offence" and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the Accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the Accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a Rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the Accused to stand trial. {Para 21}

22. In the above circumstance it would be clear that even after concluding the triple test in favour of the Appellant the learned Judge of the High Court was certainly justified in adverting to the issue relating to the gravity of the offence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1831/2019 

Decided On: 04.12.2019

P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.

Author: A.S. Bopanna, J.

Citation: 2019 INSC 1317, MANU/SC/1670/2019

Print Page

Supreme Court: BNSS S.223(1) Proviso Mandatory; Cognizance Without Hearing Accused is Void Ab Initio

As already discussed, though the complaint under the PMLA was filed earlier, the cognizance was only taken subsequently, on 02.07.2024, by which time the BNSS had come into force. Admittedly, the Appellant has not been heard at the time of taking cognizance. The mandate of a legislation which ensures the right of an Accused to a fair trial, whose liberty is at stake, cannot be dispensed with. Thus, the contention of the learned ASG that prejudice caused due to non-hearing at the stage of cognizance will have to be shown by the Accused cannot be accepted, as it is not a mere irregularity that would attract either Section 506 or 511 of the BNSS, but is an illegality that would vitiate the very proceedings. {Para 37}

38. Based on the above discussion, the views expressed by the High Court are, therefore, liable to be set aside. We do find that the allegations against the Appellant are quite serious. However, non-compliance with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS vitiates the very order taking cognizance, and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. In fact, the Appellant has, at the earliest point in time, filed the application for recall of the order taking cognizance by placing reliance upon the said proviso. Had the Special Court allowed it, the trial would have proceeded further. Suffice it to state that the Appellant cannot be faulted for any delay that has occasioned.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2678 of 2026 

Decided On: 19.05.2026

Parvinder Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Author: M.M. Sundresh, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 519,MANU/SC/0504/2026.

Print Page

BNSS Provision Capping Maximum Undertrial Term Applies To PMLA : Supreme Court Grants Bail

It has been observed that in the case of Vijay Madanlal

Chaudhary vs. Union of India, (2022) SCC Online SC 926 that

the beneficial provision of Section 436A of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’)may apply

to prosecution under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act,

2002 (for short, ‘the PMLA’) as Section 436A has come on

statute book subsequent to enactment of the PMLA. Therefore,

a corresponding provision of Section 479(1) of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) will

apply to prosecution under the PMLA. {Para 2}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION}

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.________/2024

(Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10846/2024)

BADSHAH MAJID MALIK  Vs  DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ORS. 

Dated: October 18, 2024.

Print Page

Major Boost to India’s Fight Against Cyber-Enabled Money Laundering: I4C Gains PMLA Authority

 On April 25, 2025, the Government of India took a landmark step to strengthen the country’s fight against cyber-enabled financial crimes by officially designating the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) as an authorized entity under Section 66(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). This pivotal move empowers I4C to directly coordinate, collect, and share information related to money laundering activities involving cybercrime, thereby bridging the gap between cyber law enforcement and anti-money laundering frameworks.

Read said Notification here: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b1bi1VNWrl6JzyUi5TnyDJcY9kQ6QCAy/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

Understanding Criminal Activity Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)

 Money laundering is a serious offence that involves disguising the origins of illegally obtained money to make it appear legitimate. Central to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, is the concept of criminal activity, which forms the foundation for prosecuting money laundering offences. But what exactly constitutes criminal activity under the PMLA? This article explores the meaning of criminal activity under the Act, its connection with predicate offences, and the implications for money laundering cases.

What is Criminal Activity Under the PMLA?

Print Page

Landmark Supreme Court Judgments of the year 2024 On Bail (Part 2)

 1) Supreme Court: Senthil Balaji judgment- Requirement Of Expeditious Trial Must Be Read Into Special Statutes Imposing Stringent Bail Provisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4011 of 2024.

Decided On: 26.09.2024

V. Senthil Balaji Vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1065/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/09/supreme-court-v-senthil-balaji-judgment.html

2) Supreme Court: Anticipatory Bail Can't Be Denied On Mere Assertion Of State That Custodial Interrogation Of Accused Is Required

Print Page

Supreme Court: Clean Acquittal Of Accused After Long Undertrial Custody May Give Rise To Claim For Compensation

  There are cases where clean acquittal is granted by the criminal courts to the Accused after very long incarceration as an under trial. When we say clean acquittal, we are excluding the cases where the witnesses have turned hostile or there is a bona fide defective investigation. In such cases of clean acquittal, crucial years in the life of the Accused are lost. In a given case, it may amount to violation of rights of the Accused Under Article 21 of the Constitution which may give rise to a claim for compensation.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4011 of 2024.

Decided On: 26.09.2024

V. Senthil Balaji Vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1065/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Senthil Balaji judgment- Requirement Of Expeditious Trial Must Be Read Into Special Statutes Imposing Stringent Bail Provisions

 Considering the gravity of the offences in such statutes, expeditious disposal of trials for the crimes under these statutes is contemplated. Moreover, such statutes contain provisions laying down higher threshold for the grant of bail. The expeditious disposal of the trial is also warranted considering the higher threshold set for the grant of bail. Hence, the requirement of expeditious disposal of cases must be read into these statutes. Inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together. It is a well-settled principle of our criminal jurisprudence that "bail is the rule, and jail is the exception." These stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the Accused without trial for an unreasonably long time.

 {Para 25}

26. There are a series of decisions of this Court starting from the decision in the case of K.A. Najeeb   MANU/SC/0046/2021 : 2021:INSC:50 : (2021) 3 SCC 713, which hold that such stringent provisions for the grant of bail do not take away the power of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India. We have already referred to paragraph 17 of the said decision, which lays down that the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed in a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. One of the reasons is that if, because of such provisions, incarceration of an undertrial Accused is continued for an unreasonably long time, the provisions may be exposed to the vice of being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4011 of 2024.

Decided On: 26.09.2024

V. Senthil Balaji Vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1065/2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Distinction between S 50 of PML Act and Section 160/161 of Code of Criminal Procedure

 Apart from the fact that Section 50 is a gender neutral, as it does not make any distinction between a man and a woman, there are glaring inconsistencies between the provisions contained in Section 50 of PMLA and Section 160/161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to the "Information to the Police and their Powers to Investigate". Section 160 which falls under Chapter XII empowers the Police Officer making an investigation under the said Chapter to require any person to attend within the limits of his own or adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, whereas, the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not "Investigation" in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution; and the Authorities referred to in Section 48 of PMLA are not the Police Officers as held in Vijay Madanlal. It has been specifically laid down in the said decision that the statements recorded by the Authorities Under Section 50 of PMLA are not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution, rather such statements recorded by the authority in the course of inquiry are deemed to be the Judicial proceedings in terms of Section 50(4), and are admissible in evidence, whereas the statements made by any person to a Police Officer in the course of an investigation under Chapter XII of the Code could not be used for any purpose, except for the purpose stated in the proviso to Section 162 of the Code. In view of such glaring inconsistencies between Section 50 PMLA and Section 160/161 Code of Criminal Procedure, the provisions of Section 50 PMLA would prevail in terms of Section 71 read with Section 65 thereof. {Para 16}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2221-2222 of 2023

Decided On: 09.09.2024

Abhishek Banerjee and Ors. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and S.C. Sharma, JJ.

Author: Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0991/2024,2024 INSC 668.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Section 50 of PML Act is not violative of Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution.

 The above ratio laid down in Vijay Madanlal clinches the contentions raised by the learned Counsels for the Appellants with regard to the provisions of Section 50 being violative of Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution, and we need not further elaborate the same, nor do we need to deal with the decisions of this Court on the said issue which have already been dealt with in Vijay Madanlal. Suffice it to say that Section 50 enables the authorized Authority to issue summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of the proceedings under the Act, and that the persons so summoned is bound to attend in person or through authorized agent, and to state truth upon the subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 50. At the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, the same being not "testimonial compulsion". At the stage of recording of statement of a person for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property being proceeds of crime, is not an investigation for prosecution as such. The summons can be issued even to witnesses in the inquiry so conducted by the authorized officers. The consequences of Article 20(3) of the Constitution or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play only if the involvement of such person (noticee) is revealed and his or her statements is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official. In our opinion, the learned Counsels for the Appellants have sought to reagitate the issues which have already been settled in Vijay Madanlal.

{Para 19}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2221-2222 of 2023

Decided On: 09.09.2024

Abhishek Banerjee and Ors. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and S.C. Sharma, JJ.

Author: Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0991/2024,2024 INSC 668.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: PMLA Prevails Over CrPC Regarding Procedure For Summoning Persons

 Apart from the fact that Section 50 is a gender neutral, as it does not make any distinction between a man and a woman, there are glaring inconsistencies between the provisions contained in Section 50 of PMLA and Section 160/161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to the "Information to the Police and their Powers to Investigate". Section 160 which falls under Chapter XII empowers the Police Officer making an investigation under the said Chapter to require any person to attend within the limits of his own or adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, whereas, the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not "Investigation" in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution; and the Authorities referred to in Section 48 of PMLA are not the Police Officers as held in Vijay Madanlal. It has been specifically laid down in the said decision that the statements recorded by the Authorities Under Section 50 of PMLA are not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution, rather such statements recorded by the authority in the course of inquiry are deemed to be the Judicial proceedings in terms of Section 50(4), and are admissible in evidence, whereas the statements made by any person to a Police Officer in the course of an investigation under Chapter XII of the Code could not be used for any purpose, except for the purpose stated in the proviso to Section 162 of the Code. In view of such glaring inconsistencies between Section 50 PMLA and Section 160/161 Code of Criminal Procedure, the provisions of Section 50 PMLA would prevail in terms of Section 71 read with Section 65 thereof. {Para 16}

17. So far as the procedure to be followed by the Summoning Officer while exercising the powers Under Sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 50 of the PMLA is concerned, it is pertinent to note that Rule 11 of the said Rules 2005, requires the Summoning Officer to follow the procedure as prescribed therein, i.e., to issue Summons in Form V appended to the said Rules. The said prescribed Form V requires Summoning Officer to mention not only the Name, Designation and Address of the Summoning Officer but also the details of the persons summoned as also the documents sought therein. The foot note of Form V also mentions that the proceedings shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, and if the person summoned fails to give evidence as mentioned in the Schedule, he would be liable to penal proceedings under the Act. Thus, there being specific procedure prescribed under the Statutory Rules of 2005 for summoning the person Under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 of the Act, the same would prevail over any other procedure prescribed under the Code, particularly the procedure contemplated in Section 160/161, as also the procedure for production of documents contemplated in Section 91 of the Code, in view of the overriding effect given to the PMLA over the other Acts including the Code of Criminal Procedure Under Section 71 r/w Section 65 of the PMLA.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2221-2222 of 2023

Decided On: 09.09.2024

Abhishek Banerjee and Ors. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and S.C. Sharma, JJ.

Author: Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0991/2024,2024 INSC 668.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Can't Deny Benefit Of First Proviso To S.45 PMLA Merely Because A Woman Is Well-Educated Or An MP/MLA

  This Court, in the carefully couched paragraph

extracted above used the phrase “persons of tender age and

woman who are likely to be more vulnerable, may sometimes

be misused by the unscrupulous elements”. This is vastly

different from saying that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the

PMLA applies only to “vulnerable woman”. Further, this

Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia (supra) does not

say that merely because a woman is highly educated or

sophisticated or a Member of Parliament or a Member of

Legislative Assembly, she is not entitled to the benefit of the

proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. {Para 27}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

[Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 10778 of 2024]

KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA Vs  DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 

Author: B.R. GAVAI, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 632.

Dated: AUGUST 27, 2024.

Print Page

Short Notes of Judgments under Prevention of money laundering Act(PMLA)

 

1) Supreme Court: PMLA Accused Need Not Fulfill S.45 Conditions When Furnishing Bond After Appearing Before Trial Court As Per Summons

In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court held that when an accused in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), who appears before the Special Court pursuant to a summons issued to him, it cannot be considered that he is in custody. Therefore, such an accused is not required to apply for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.

The Special Court can however ask such an accused to furnish bonds to secure presence in terms of Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To accept such a bond, it is not necessary that the stringent twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA must be satisfied, clarified the Supreme Court.

Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 121/2024 (and connected matters)

Decided on: 1 March, 2024

2) Supreme court: ED Cannot Arrest Accused After Special Court Has Taken Cognizance Of PMLA Complaint

Print Page

Whether the trial of the offence of money-laundering should follow the trial of the scheduled/predicate offence or vice versa?

 Section 43(1) of the Act provides for the constitution of Special Courts, by the Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 43 empowers a Special Court constituted Under Section 43(1), also to try an offence other than the offence punishable Under Section 4 of the PMLA, with which the Accused may be charged at the same trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, a Special Court is constituted Under Section 43(1) primarily for the purpose of trying an offence punishable Under Section 4. But Sub-section (2) of Section 43 confers an additional jurisdiction upon such a Special Court to try any other offence with which the Accused may be charged at the same trial. Section 43 reads as follows:

43. Special Courts.--(1) The Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, shall, for trial of offence punishable Under Section 4, by notification, designate one or more Courts of Session as Special Court or Special Courts for such area or areas or for such case or class or group of cases as may be specified in the notification.

Explanation.--In this Sub-section, "High Court" means the High Court of the State in which a Sessions Court designated as Special Court was functioning immediately before such designation.

(2) While trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court shall also try an offence, other than an offence referred to in Sub-section (1), with which the Accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial. {Para 21}

22. Section 44 deals with the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Special Court, constituted Under Section 43(1). At the outset, Section 44(1) takes note of two different contingencies, namely, (i) cases where the scheduled offence as well as the offence of money-laundering are committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the same Special Court constituted Under Section 43(1); and (ii) cases where the Court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence, is other than the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the complaint of the offence of money-laundering. Section 44(1) reads as follows:

44. Offences triable by Special Courts.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--

(a) an offence punishable Under Section 4 and any scheduled offence connected to the offence under that Section shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed:

Provided that the Special Court, trying a scheduled offence before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to try such scheduled offence; or;

(b) a Special Court may, upon a complaint made by an authority authorised in this behalf under this Act take cognizance of offence Under Section 3, without the Accused being committed to it for trial;

Provided that after conclusion of investigation, if no offence of money-laundering is made out requiring filing of such complaint, the said authority shall submit a closure report before the Special Court; or

(c) if the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence is other than the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the complaint of the offence of money-laundering Under Sub-clause (b), it shall, on an application by the authority authorised to file a complaint under this Act, commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court and the Special Court shall, on receipt of such case proceed to deal with it from the stage at which it is committed.

(d) a Special Court while trying the scheduled offence or the offence of money-laundering shall hold trial in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), as it applies to a trial before a Court of Session.

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;

(ii) the complaint shall be deemed to include any subsequent complaint in respect of further investigation that may be conducted to bring any further evidence, oral or documentary, against any Accused person involved in respect of the offence, for which complaint has already been filed, whether named in the original complaint or not.

23. What is dealt with by Section 44(1)(a) is a situation where there is no complication. Section 44(1)(a) lays down the most fundamental Rule relating to territorial jurisdiction, by providing that an offence punishable Under Section 4 of the PMLA and any scheduled offence connected to the same shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed. It is relevant to note that Section 44(1)(a) uses the expression "offence" in three places in contradistinction to the expression "scheduled offence" used only once. This usage is not without significance. In all three places where the word "offence" alone is used, it connotes the offence of money-laundering. The place where the expression "scheduled offence" is used, it connotes the predicate offence. By prescribing that an offence punishable Under Section 4 of the PMLA and any scheduled offence connected to the same shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which "the offence" has been committed, Section 44(1)(a) makes it crystal clear that it is the Special Court constituted Under Section 43(1), which will be empowered to try even the scheduled offence connected to the same.

24. After mapping out/laying down such a general but fundamental rule, the Act then proceeds to deal with a more complicated situation in Section 44(1)(c). The question as to what happens if the Court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence is other than the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the offence of money-laundering, is what is sought to be answered by Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 44. If the Court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence is different from the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the offence of money-laundering, then the authority authorised to file a complaint under PMLA should make an application to the Court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence. On the application so filed, the Court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence, should commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the complaint of money-laundering.

25. Therefore, it is clear that the trial of the scheduled offence should take place in the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the offence of money-laundering. In other words, the trial of the scheduled offence, insofar as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, should follow the trial of the offence of money-laundering and not vice versa.

26. Since the Act contemplates the trial of the scheduled offence and the trial of the offence of money-laundering to take place only before the Special Court constituted Under Section 43(1), a doubt is prone to arise as to whether all the offences are to be tried together. This doubt is sought to be removed by Explanation (i) to Section 44(1). Explanation (i) clarifies that the trial of both sets of offences by the same Court shall not be construed as joint trial.

27. A careful dissection of Clauses (a) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 shows that they confer primacy upon the Special Court constituted Under Section 43(1) of the PMLA. These two clauses contain two Rules, namely, (i) that the offence punishable under the PMLA as well as a scheduled offence connected to the same shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence of money-laundering has been committed; and (ii) that if cognizance has been taken by one Court, in respect of the scheduled offence and cognizance has been taken in respect of the offence of money-laundering by the Special Court, the Court trying the scheduled offence shall commit it to the Special Court trying the offence of money-laundering.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 12 of 2023

Rana Ayyub  Vs. Directorate of Enforcement.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V. Ramasubramanian and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.

Author: V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Decided On: 07.02.2023.

Citation: MANU/SC/0096/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

To What extent provisions of CRPC are applicable to proceedings under The Prevention of Money Laundering Act?

 It is only because of the Special Court constituted Under Section 43(1) being conferred primacy that Section 44(1) begins with the words "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure". Though the PMLA contains a non-obstante Clause in relation to the Code of Criminal Procedure, both in Section 44(1) and in Section 45(1), there are two other provisions where the Code of Criminal Procedure is specifically declared to apply to the proceedings before a Special Court. Section 46(1) specifically makes the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable to proceedings before a Special Court. Similarly, Section 65 of the PMLA makes the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure apply to arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation, investigation, prosecution and all other proceedings under the Act. {Para 28}

29. Therefore, it is clear that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable to all proceedings under the Act including proceedings before the Special Court, except to the extent they are specifically excluded. Hence, Section 71 of the PMLA providing an overriding effect, has to be construed in tune with Section 46(1) and Section 65.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 12 of 2023

Rana Ayyub  Vs. Directorate of Enforcement.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V. Ramasubramanian and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.

Author: V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Decided On: 07.02.2023.

Citation: MANU/SC/0096/2023.

Print Page