Case Summary: Directorate of Enforcement v. Surajpal & Ors. (High Court of Delhi)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner is the Directorate of Enforcement and the respondents are Surajpal & Others. The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva on 10.08.2018. Counsel for the petitioner included Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI with Ms. Krishanu Bawa; counsel appearing for certain respondents included Mr. Aditya Vikram with Mr. Avinash and Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with other counsel for R-4.

Procedurally, a complaint under Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (read with Section 200 Cr.P.C.) — a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("Money Laundering Act" or "PMLA") — was filed against the respondents before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts. Separately, a complaint concerning money laundering was filed by the petitioner and was being tried by the Special Judge, Patiala House Courts, under the Money Laundering Act.

The petitioner moved an application under Section 44(1)(c) of the Money Laundering Act seeking transfer/committal of the complaint under the Wildlife (Protection) Act to the Special Court that had taken cognizance of the money laundering complaint. The ACMM (Court of ACMM) allowed the application by order dated 19.11.2015 and placed the matter before the District & Sessions Judge.

By order dated 26.11.2015 the District & Sessions Judge, noting a Delhi High Court notification dated 01.11.2012 empowering all Courts of Sessions or Additional Sessions Judges in Delhi to be Special Courts under the Money Laundering Act, transmitted the case back to the Metropolitan Magistrate for passing appropriate orders. The Metropolitan Magistrate reviewed its earlier order and by order dated 18.03.2016 committed the matter to the Court of Sessions/Additional Sessions Judges (Central District) Tis Hazari Courts and again placed the matter before the District & Sessions Judge. Those orders of 26.11.2015 and 28.03.2016 (the latter recorded as 18.03.2016 by the Magistrate but impugned herein) are the subject of the present petition (CRL.REV.P. 67/2017).

Separately, the court considered and allowed Crl.M.A. No.1025/2017 (application for condonation of delay) on the ground that administrative consultations had caused the delay.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Section 44(1)(c) of the Money Laundering Act requires the court which has taken cognizance of a scheduled offence to commit/transfer that case to the particular Special Court "that has taken cognizance" of the complaint of the offence of money laundering (i.e., the Special Court which originally took cognizance of the ML complaint) rather than to any Special Court merely notified or empowered under the Act.
2. Whether the Trial Court was competent to review its earlier order committing/transferring the scheduled-offence complaint to the Special Court.
3. Whether the impugned orders dated 26.11.2015 and 28.03.2016 (transmission back to the Metropolitan Magistrate and subsequent committal to Sessions/Additional Sessions Judges at Tis Hazari) were valid in light of the statutory mandate in Section 44(1)(c).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• It was contended that, apart from the question of the Trial Court's competence to review its own order, Section 44(1)(c) of the Money Laundering Act mandates that upon an application by the authorized authority the case relating to the scheduled offence must be transferred/committed to the Special Court that has taken cognizance of the complaint of the offence of money laundering under the Money Laundering Act.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the text of Section 44(1)(c) of the Money Laundering Act, which provides that 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, it shall on an application by the authority authorized to file complaint under the Act, commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court and that the Special Court shall, on receipt of such case, proceed to deal with it from the stage at which it is committed.

From this statutory language the Court drew the following conclusions:

• The phrase "the Special Court" in Section 44(1)(c) evidences legislative intention that the committal is to the particular Special Court that has already taken cognizance of the complaint of the offence of money laundering (i.e., the Special Court which took cognizance of the ML complaint), not to any Special Court that may be generally empowered by a notification under the Money Laundering Act.
• Even where proceedings relating to the scheduled offence are pending before a Special Court constituted/empowered by notification under the Act, if that Special Court is not the Special Court which originally took cognizance of the money laundering offence, then on the authorized authority's application that Special Court is mandated to transfer/commit the proceedings to the Special Court that has taken cognizance of the offence of money laundering.
• Applying this interpretation to the facts, the Court found the impugned administrative/procedural orders of 26.11.2015 and 28.03.2016 to be materially irregular because they resulted in the matter not being committed to the Special Court which had taken cognizance of the money laundering complaint (the Special Judge, Patiala House Courts), contrary to the mandate read into Section 44(1)(c).

On this basis, the Court concluded that the impugned orders could not be sustained and set them aside.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 26.11.2015 and 28.03.2016 are set aside and Complaint Case No.123/1/2013 under Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Patiala House Court under the Money Laundering Act.

Implications: The direct consequence is that the Wildlife Act complaint (registered as Complaint Case No.123/1/2013) is to be dealt with by the Special Court at Patiala House (where Complaint Case No.04/2015 under the Money Laundering Act is pending), and that Special Court shall proceed with the case from the stage at which it is committed. The opinion does not set out any broader precedential pronouncement beyond the Court's statutory interpretation and the specific orders made in this matter.

Order Dasti under the signature of the Court Master. Judgment delivered orally by SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. on August 10, 2018.