Held: The offence punishable u/s.120B of the IPC will become a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy alleged is of committing an offence which is specifically included in the Schedule – In the present case, in the chargesheets filed in the alleged scheduled offences, there is no allegation of the commission of criminal conspiracy to commit any of the offences included in the Schedule – Except for s.120B, IPC, no other offence in the schedule was applied – Therefore, in this case, the scheduled offence does not exist at all – Hence, the appellant cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable u/s.3, PMLA – Impugned order quashed and set aside – Complaint pending before the Special Court for PMLA cases, Bengaluru quashed as regards the present appellant – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482. [Paras 26, 27]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.3 – Plea of the appellant that as she was not arraigned as an accused in the chargesheets filed pertaining to the alleged scheduled offences, she cannot be roped in as an accused for the offences punishable u/s.3:
Held: In a given case, if the prosecution for the scheduled offence ends in the acquittal of all the accused or discharge of all the accused or the proceedings of the scheduled offence are quashed in its entirety, the scheduled offence will not exist, and therefore, no one can be prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s.3 of the PMLA as there will not be any proceeds of crime – Thus, in such a case, the accused against whom the complaint u/s.3 of the PMLA is filed will benefit from the scheduled offence ending by acquittal or discharge of all the accused – Similarly, he will get the benefit of quashing the proceedings of the scheduled offence – However, an accused in the PMLA case who comes into the picture after the scheduled offence is committed by assisting in the concealment or use of proceeds of crime need not be an accused in the scheduled offence – Such an accused can still be prosecuted under PMLA so long as the scheduled offence exists – An offence u/s.3 can be committed after a scheduled offence is committed – It is not necessary that a person against whom the offence u/s.3 is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence – Plea of the appellant rejected. [Paras 15, 16]
Interpretation of Statutes – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 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 legislative intent as expressed in the enactment – While giving effect to the legislature’s intention, if two reasonable interpretations can be given to a particular provision of a penal statute, the Court should generally adopt the interpretation that avoids the imposition of penal consequences – A more lenient interpretation of the two needs to be adopted – The legislative intent which can be gathered from the definition of the scheduled offence under clause (y) of sub Section (1) of s.2 of the PMLA is that every crime which may generate proceeds of crime need not be a scheduled offence – Therefore, only certain specific offences have been included in the Schedule – Thus, if the submission of the ED that as s.120B, IPC is included in Part A to the Schedule even if the allegation is of making a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence which is not a part of the Schedule, the offence becomes a scheduled offence, is accepted, the Schedule will become meaningless or redundant – Reason explained – Interpretation suggested by the ED will defeat the legislative object of making only a few selected offences as scheduled offences – If such an interpretation is accepted, the statute may attract the vice of unconstitutionality for being manifestly arbitrary – It cannot be the legislature’s intention to make every offence not included in the Schedule a scheduled offence by applying s.120B – Therefore, the offence u/s.120-B included in Part A of the Schedule will become a scheduled offence only if the criminal conspiracy is to commit any offence already included in Parts A, B or C of the Schedule. [Paras 23-25]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2022) SCC Online SC 929 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.