Katta Subramaniam Naidu vs Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement. Criminal Petition 5698/2019 decided on 14 December 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354332/1/CRLP5698-19-14-12-2020.pdf
Relevant Paragraphs: Case law discussed. 43. In the backdrop of the analysis made by the various High Courts in the country and the interpretation placed on the crucial terms and expressions found in the PML Act, let me now proceed to deal with the issues raised by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners. The first and foremost question that need to be answered is, whether in the context of the provisions of the PML Act, prosecution initiated against the petitioners under section 3 of the PML Act and the confiscation proceedings resorted by the respondent under sections 5 and 8 of the PML Act are based on expost facto law and hit by the prohibition contained under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India?
44. Petitioners appear to have put forward the plea of post facto law on the premise that the acts constituting the offences alleged against them were perpetrated prior to the amendment of the schedule to the PML Act and therefore, the action initiated against them falls within the mischief of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. This contention, in my view, in the factual setting of the case, is totally misplaced and misconceived and appears to have been canvassed by misconstruing the provisions of sections 3, 2(1)(u) and the Schedule appended to the PML Act. No-doubt, it is true that the Schedule to the PML Act was amended by Act 21 of 2009 and the various offences specified therein came to be included therein with effect from 1.06.2009. Nonetheless, in the instant cases, as on the date of initiation of action against petitioners, be it under section 3 or under section 5 of the PML Act, these provisions were very much there in the statute book. As already stated above, in all the cases, the prosecution under section 3 of the PML Act and adjudication proceedings under section 5 of the PML Act have been initiated against the petitioners subsequent to 1.06.2009. Therefore, the contention urged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted on the basis of ex post facto laws is factually incorrect.
48. From the plain reading of section 3 read with section 2(1)(u) of the PML Act, it is clear that what is made punishable under section 3 is the activity connected with the proceeds of crime either by getting oneself involved in the process or activity connected thereto or directly or indirectly attempting to indulge or knowingly assist or knowingly be a party to the alleged activities and projecting it as untainted property, whereas the components of the offences under section 13 of the PC Act and Sections 120B, 419, 420 and other IPC offences are entirely different. The prosecution under section 3 of the PML Act, by no stretch of imagination, could be equated with the prosecution under section 13 of the PC Act or other offences specified in the Schedule namely IPC or other laws. They are distinct and separate offences. Prosecution under section 3 of PML Act is not based on the outcome of the trial of the offenders under section 13 of the PC Act. A reading of section 3 of PML Act in unamended form would clearly indicate that even without there being any conviction of the accused in a predicate offence and even if the offender under section 3 of the PML Act is not a party to the predicate offence, still the prosecution could be launched against him if the offender is found involved in any process or activity connected with the ‘proceeds of crime’.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj Advocate Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 