HC puts on hold framing of charges against realty firm under PMLA
Provisions of money laundering law cannot be applied retrospectively, says the petitioner
CHANDIGARH: A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered that proceedings pertaining to framing of charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in Manesar land matter be kept in abeyance by the trial court for real estate developer TDI Infrastructure Ltd till March 31.
In its petition, TDI Infrastructure and its director Ravindra Taneja had sought quashing of supplementary prosecution complaint (supplementary chargesheet) submitted in June 2020 by the enforcement directorate (ED) in the court naming them as accused under the PMLA.
The petitioner has also sought quashing of the June 30, 2020 summoning order of a special judge (under PMLA), Panchkula, for taking cognisance of the supplementary chargesheet.
The petitioner has contended that the special judge gravely erred in taking cognisance of the ED’S supplementary prosecution complaint as the transactions on the basis of which the predicate offence has been registered dates back to 2004-2005 whereas Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code were added to the schedule of offences under the PMLA by way of PMLA Amendment Act in 2009.
Thus, the provisions of PMLA cannot be applied retrospectively and as a consequence thereof the June 30, 2020 order of special judge, Panchkula, taking cognisance of the supplementary prosecution complaint is liable to be quashed, the petitioners said.
The petitioners added that they were not mentioned in the FIR registered by the CBI in Manesar land case.
As per the HC proceedings of February 15, “It is inter alia submitted that predicate offences are alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in 2004-05 much before the said offences were made a scheduled offence under the PMLA, 2002, on June 1, 2009. Thus, the provisions of the PMLA cannot be applied retrospectively. To support the plea, reliance has been placed on judgment of the single judge of the Andhra Pradesh high court in an identical situation under the PMLA, 2002 reported as Tech Mahindra Ltd vs joint director, directorate of enforcement, Hyderabad. The SLP qua cited judgment is stated to have been dismissed by the Supreme Court on December 8, 2017.”
The HC proceedings state: “It is next urged that based on similar arguments of the alleged commission of predicate offence when it was not a scheduled offence under the PMLA, 2002, the Delhi HC on November 18, 2019, restrained adjudicating authority to pass the final order qua the provisional attachment of properties of the petitioners, and the said order is in operation till today.”
The petitioner also challenged that the vires of the explanations to Section 3 and 44 of the PMLA, amended in terms of Section 193 of the Finance Act, 2019.