P.AUGUSTINE, AGE 45 YEARS, v. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

3. In the present case, the relief sought for is to set aside the order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai taking cognizance of the offence by ordering that the complaint be taken on file in C.C.No.4 of 2018.

4. With reference to the said relief, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would rely on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 11^thNovember, 2024 in Crl.M.C.No.3146 of 2022 & Crl.M.A.No.13287 of 2022 in the case of Sanjay Aggarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, wherein it has been held, in paragraphs 55 & 56, as follows:-

"55. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep S.Wodeyar

v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62, wherein, it was held that provisions of CrPC would apply to the procedure undertaken before a Special Court enacted under a special statute unless the said special statute explicitly prohibits the application of provisions of the CrPC. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:

"58....Moreover, bearing in mind the objective behind prescribing that cognizance has to be taken of the offence and not the offender, a mere change in the form of the cognizance order would not alter the effect of the order for any injustice to be meted out. ***

3

66. Therefore, on a combined reading of Sections 4 and 5 CrPC along with Section 30-C of the MMDR Act, it is apparent that the procedure prescribed under the Code shall be applicable to proceedings before the Special Court unless the MMDR Act provides anything to the contrary. These provisions incorporate the principle of express repeal - i.e., unless any provision of the CrPC is expressly repealed by the provisions of the MMDR Act, the procedure prescribed under the CrPC would apply to the proceedings before the Special Court. Provisions of the petitioning Creditor At, the Pocso Act and the NIA Act which expressly provide that the Special Court may try offences under the statute along with other offences is only clarificatory. It is settled law that while contextually interpreting a provision, reference to other statutes which are pari materia can be made. [Harshad S. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 257 : 2001 SCC (Crl.) 1447]. However, since the provisions in the similar statute on combined trial are only clarificatory, the reference to external aids offer no support to the argument of the appellant.

***

68. Since there is no express provision that excludes the application of Section 220 CrPC, it needs to be examined if the MMDR Act has by necessary implication excluded the application of Section 220 CrPC. In this context, it needs to be determined if Section 30-B of the MMDR Act while establishing the Special Court for the offences under Section 4 of the MMDR AcT, by necessary implication excludes the application of Section 220 CrPC."

56. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the instant case, specifically the observation made in paragraph no.58 and

4

66, it is pertinent to state here that it is not necessary for the Special Court under the PMLA to record its reasons for the cognizance since the said complaint is filed by an investigating agency unlike the private complaint under Section 190 of the CrPC (now Section 210 of the BNSS)."

5. The proceeding dated 25.04.2018 is nothing but a summon issued to the petitioner/3^rdaccused asking the party to appear in person before the Special Court on the 4^thday of June, 2018 at 10.30 A.M. Such an order would not provide a cause for institution of proceedings. Since the petitioner has not made out any acceptable ground for interference, we are not inclined to entertain the present criminal revision case. Accordingly, the criminal revision case stands dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.7323 of 2018 is also dismissed.

Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.)

Neutral Citation : yes/no 25.11.2024

ss

To

1. The Principal Sessions Judge Chennai

5

2. The Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement Chennai Zonal Office 3^rdFloor, C Block

Murugesa Naicker Complex No.84, Greams Road Chennai 600 006

3. The Special Public Prosecutor (ED Cases) Chennai

6

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

AND

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

ss

Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2018

25.11.2024

7