| Headnote |
Issue for consideration:Whether the offence u/s.120B, IPC included in Paragraph 1 of theSchedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, canbe treated as a scheduled offence even if the criminal conspiracyalleged is to commit an offence which is not a part of the Schedule.Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Paragraph 1 of theSchedule – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120B – Appellant purchasedthe first property from Alliance Business School and thesecond property from accused no.1 against whom an FIR wasregistered alleging that he collected Rs.107 crores from thestudents by claiming himself as the Chancellor of the AllianceUniversity – Four FIRs, ECIR registered – Complaint filedagainst the appellant-accused alleging that she entered intoa conspiracy with accused no.1 by getting executed nominalsale deeds in respect of the first and second properties in hername for the benefit of accused no.1 and facilitated him to useher bank accounts to siphon the university funds, assistinghim in the activity connected with the proceeds of crime –Petition for quashing the complaint filed by the appellant,dismissed by High Court – Appellant pleaded that out of thefour scheduled/predicate offences, chargesheets were filed inthe case of three offences wherein only one offence coveredby the Schedule to the PMLA was mentioned– It was thuscontended that s.120B of IPC alone, in the absence of anyother scheduled offence cannot sustain a charge under thePMLA and unless there is an allegation regarding a conspiracyto commit any scheduled offence, the prosecution under thePMLA cannot lieHeld: The offence punishable u/s.120B of the IPC will become ascheduled offence only if the conspiracy alleged is of committingan offence which is specifically included in the Schedule – In thepresent case, in the chargesheets filed in the alleged scheduledoffences, there is no allegation of the commission of criminalconspiracy to commit any of the offences included in the Schedule– Except for s.120B, IPC, no other offence in the schedule wasapplied – Therefore, in this case, the scheduled offence does notexist at all – Hence, the appellant cannot be prosecuted for theoffences punishable u/s.3, PMLA – Impugned order quashed andset aside – Complaint pending before the Special Court for PMLAcases, Bengaluru quashed as regards the present appellant – Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482. [Paras 26, 27]Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.3 – Plea ofthe appellant that as she was not arraigned as an accusedin the chargesheets filed pertaining to the alleged scheduledoffences, she cannot be roped in as an accused for theoffences punishable u/s.3:Held: In a given case, if the prosecution for the scheduledoffence ends in the acquittal of all the accused or discharge ofall the accused or the proceedings of the scheduled offence arequashed in its entirety, the scheduled offence will not exist, andtherefore, no one can be prosecuted for the offence punishableu/s.3 of the PMLA as there will not be any proceeds of crime –Thus, in such a case, the accused against whom the complaintu/s.3 of the PMLA is filed will benefit from the scheduled offenceending by acquittal or discharge of all the accused – Similarly, hewill get the benefit of quashing the proceedings of the scheduledoffence – However, an accused in the PMLA case who comes intothe picture after the scheduled offence is committed by assistingin the concealment or use of proceeds of crime need not be anaccused in the scheduled offence – Such an accused can stillbe prosecuted under PMLA so long as the scheduled offenceexists – An offence u/s.3 can be committed after a scheduledoffence is committed – It is not necessary that a person againstwhom the offence u/s.3 is alleged must have been shown as theaccused in the scheduled offence – Plea of the appellant rejected.[Paras 15, 16]Interpretation of Statutes – Prevention of Money LaunderingAct, 2002 – Paragraph 1 of the Schedule – Penal Code, 1860– s.120B:Held: The penal statutes are required to be strictly construed –The penal laws must be construed according to the legislativeintent as expressed in the enactment – While giving effect to thelegislature’s intention, if two reasonable interpretations can begiven to a particular provision of a penal statute, the Court shouldgenerally adopt the interpretation that avoids the imposition ofpenal consequences – A more lenient interpretation of the twoneeds to be adopted – The legislative intent which can be gatheredfrom the definition of the scheduled offence under clause (y) ofsub Section (1) of s.2 of the PMLA is that every crime which maygenerate proceeds of crime need not be a scheduled offence –Therefore, only certain specific offences have been included inthe Schedule – Thus, if the submission of the ED that as s.120B,IPC is included in Part A to the Schedule even if the allegationis of making a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence whichis not a part of the Schedule, the offence becomes a scheduledoffence, is accepted, the Schedule will become meaningless orredundant – Reason explained – Interpretation suggested by theED will defeat the legislative object of making only a few selectedoffences as scheduled offences – If such an interpretation isaccepted, the statute may attract the vice of unconstitutionality forbeing manifestly arbitrary – It cannot be the legislature’s intentionto make every offence not included in the Schedule a scheduledoffence by applying s.120B – Therefore, the offence u/s.120-Bincluded in Part A of the Schedule will become a scheduled offenceonly if the criminal conspiracy is to commit any offence alreadyincluded in Parts A, B or C of the Schedule. [Paras 23-25] |
