Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 450 (KAR)

ASADULLA KHAN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2022-04-01

K.NATARAJAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in Special C.C.No. 36/2013 pending on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and Special Judge (CCH-1), Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sec. 3 punishable under Sec. 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PML' Act). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned special counsel for the respondent. 3. The case of the prosecution before the trial Court is that the Deputy Director of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has filed a complaint in ECIR No. 87/BZ/2010 before the Special Court under Ss. 43 and 44 of the PML Act by way of PCR No. 13/2013 alleging that the petitioner-company is said to have laundering money has committed the offence as per Sec. 3 of the PML Act punishable under Sec. 4 of the PML Act read with Ss. 120B, 420 of IPC, Ss. 13(2) read with Sec. 131 D of the P.C. Act. The same is challenged before this Court by the petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contested the matter challenging the taking cognizance by the Special Court stating that the petitioners were residing at Mandya, the alleged offence committed at Mandya District, therefore, the Court at Bengaluru have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and on the point of jurisdiction, the complaint is not sustainable, hence, liable to be dismissed and further contended that the learned Sessions Judge while taking cognizance has not stated anything about the offence committed by the petitioners and for what offence, the cognizance was taken, but has issued summons without application of mind. Therefore, on this ground, the proceedings shall be quashed. 5. Per contra, Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Special counsel for the respondent has objected the petition and contended that as per the Notification issued by the Government of India in the year 2006 itself, for Karnataka, the Principal City Civil Court, Bengaluru assigned the jurisdiction for the trial of offences committed in almost fourteen Districts including Mandya District and from Bagalkot to Raichur District and another 13 Districts, Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Raichur was designated as Special Court. Therefore, he has contended that the objection raised by the petitioners' counsel is not sustainable. Therefore, he has contended that the objection raised by the petitioners' counsel is not sustainable. Learned Special counsel has also contended that the trial Court has already framed the charges on 20/2/2021 and subsequently, the complainant has been examined as PW.1 on 4/9/2021 and the petitioners' counsel has already cross-examined PW.1 on 22/9/2021 prior to the staying of proceedings by this Court and therefore, once the framing of charge was not challenged and evidence was commenced, when the trial Court already stated that there is no material to frame the charges, this Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings by exercising the power under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition. 6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the petitioners are said to be residing at Mandya. The alleged offence is said to have committed by the petitioners at Mandya District. It is pertinent to note that the Government of India vide Gazette Notification dtd. 1/6/2006 issued under Sec. 43(1) of the PML Act, 2002 and for Karnataka, the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru established as the Special Court for the offences committed in various Revenue Districts including Bengaluru, Tumakuru, Kolar, Mandya, Hassan District etc. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that Principal City Civil Court, Bengaluru has no jurisdiction is not sustainable and the ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is sustainable and hence, rejected. 7. The another contention raised by the learned counsel is that the trial Court while taking cognizance has not applied the mind and also not disclosed the offences in the order while taking cognizance, thereby, the order of taking cognizance is not sustainable under the law. 8. Per contra, the learned Special counsel for the respondent has also objected the same by relying upon the unreported judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No. 1960/2017 dtd. 1/3/2018, where in the similar situation, the Co-ordinate Bench has held that once the cognizance was taken and after the lapse of nine years, the said contention cannot be taken at belated stage and once the petitioners moved a discharge application seeking discharge and the same was considered on merits and rejected, once again invoking Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained when there is a prima facie case made out against the petitioners. Here in this case, it is an admitted fact that the trial Court has taken the cognizance on 11/2/2013 and subsequently, the petitioners appeared through their counsel and filed bail petition stating that they have been seeking bail for the offence punishable under Sec. 3 of the PML Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused persons did not know about the offences for which they have been summoned. That apart, the Special Court has framed the charges holding that there is sufficient material to frame charges for the offence punishable under Sec. 4 of the PML Act and trial also commenced. PW.1 is fully examined including the cross-examination and re-examination. Now this Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings holding that there is no material placed on record. Once the competent court of law held that there is material placed on record for framing of charge, the question of quashing the proceedings under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. does not arise as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, when there is abundant material placed on record and charges were framed by the trial Court, the evidence of the complainant is also completed. Therefore, I am of the view that the petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.