CASE TITLE:
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
July 27, 2022
BENCH:
Justice. A.M. Khanwilkar
Justice. Dinesh Maheshwari
Justice. C.T. Ravikumar
PARTIES:
Petitioners – Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors
Respondents – Union of India & Ors
SUBJECT
Several petitions had been filed questioning the constitutionality of the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The validity of the non-supply of Enforcement Case Information Report to the person concerned has been questioned in comparison to that of the FIR registration under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the penal proceedings can be started against an individual without informing him about the charges?
- Whether it is mandatory to furnish the copy of Enforcement Case Information Report to the person being arrested?
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- SECTION 3 OF THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002:The section provides that any person who either indirectly or directly indulges or knowingly is part of any process involving the proceeds of crime is guilty of the offence of money laundering.
- SECTION 48 OF THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002:This Section deals with the appropriate authorities under the Act. They include Director or Additional Director or Joint Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director and any officers as necessarily appointed by the purposes of Act.
- SECTION 154 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:This section provides the detailed procedure for the registration of F.I.R. The officer in charge of the respective police station is empowered to register and record the F.I.R.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The counsel on behalf of the petitioners submitted that procedure followed by the Enforcement Directorate in registering the ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) was arbitrary and violative of constitutional rights enshrined under part III of the constitution of India, thus they further submitted that the procedures being followed under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were violative of criminal justice system.
- The counsel further submitted that it cannot be held that the Enforcement Case Information Report is an internal document and the non-compliance of the same with reference to Code of Criminal Procedureis violative of constitutional provisions.
- The counsel further submitted that under the Code of Criminal Procedure the F.I.R must be registered by the officer and the same procedure should be followed for Enforcement Case Information Report but it had not been followed.
- The counsel submitted that the same violates the Article 21 as the accused has the right to know the allegations.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The counsel on behalf of the respondent submits that the Code of Criminal Procedure is a generic procedure and does not have universal application overriding any special legislations existing.
- The counsel further submitted that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act provided a distinct procedure for investigation and trial of the offence and when there isn’t any express implication as to the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, the same shall not be applied.
- The counsel further submitted that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is an independent code providing separate provisions.The legislators had intentionally avoided the registration process of F.I.R, keeping in mind the severity of the offences they were of the opinion that if there was a prior notice sent the accused would tamper with any material evidence.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The court considering the averments made by the both parties held that there exists a strict procedure as to registration of F.I.R under the Code of Criminal Procedure unlike there is no such provision that talks about registration offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2000.
- The court held that PMLA being a special legislation cannot be combined with the Code of Criminal Procedure for reference with regard to any subject matter.
- The court further held that there wasn’t any mandatory provision as to the supply of Enforcement Case Information Report in all the cases to the accused.
- The court further held that this does notviolate the Article 22(1)of the constitution of India if the sufficient grounds for arrest are informed to the accused.
CONCLUSION
- It is thus clear that the F.I.R and the Enforcement Case Information Reportcannot be looked at under the same vision as there is no necessity regarding the registration or supply of Enforcement Case Information Report unlike the F.I.R since the same has to be duly registered. And there is no necessity with regard to the mandatory supply of Enforcement Case Information Report copy to the accused mere disclosure of sufficient grounds for arrest is enough.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
