Case Note & Summary
Before the High Court of Bombay at Goa were two criminal writ petitions filed by Ankur alias Rahul Khanna and Hardeep Singh seeking quashing of ECIR/PJZO/03/2022 and proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 pending before the Special Court at Mapusa. The background involved FIR No.10/2022 registered by Porvorim Police Station under Sections 420, 409, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa Public Gambling Act, 1976 along with Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 against three named accused—Rajnish Kumar, Shashank Siddharth and Anup Palod. The petitioners were not named in this FIR. Based on the FIR, the Directorate of Enforcement registered an Enforcement Case Information Report on 28 January 2022. The only scheduled offences under PMLA in the FIR were Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. On 6 April 2022 the petitioners' premises were raided and they were arrested on 7 April 2022. Their bail applications were rejected by the PMLA Court on 25 April 2022, and a prosecution complaint under Section 45 of PMLA was filed on 3 June 2022 against them for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA. Cognizance was taken on 17 June 2022. This Court rejected bail on 22 June 2022 observing investigation was in progress. On 23 December 2022, the Investigating Officer of Crime Branch filed Charge-sheet No.104/2022 invoking only Sections 3 and 4 of Goa Public Gambling Act against the three accused, dropping the scheduled offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and also deleting Section 408 IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act. Consequently, on 9 January 2023 this Court granted bail to the petitioners noting no chargesheet was filed on scheduled offences under PMLA. On 15 March 2023, the Enforcement Directorate summoned the petitioners. Petitioners argued that since no scheduled offence existed and they were not shown as accused, no prosecution under PMLA could continue, relying on Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary, Indrani Patnaik and Naresh Goyal. The respondent argued the petitions were premature because Crime Branch communicated on 20 April 2023 that further investigation was taken up. The court's analysis began with noting that petitioners were not named in the FIR and scheduled offences were dropped. The available excerpt ends before the final order. The court was to determine whether ECIR and PMLA proceedings should be quashed or deferred. No final decision is contained in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Money Laundering - Predicate Offence Requirement - Scheduled Offence Essential for PMLA Prosecution - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Sections 3, 4, 45 - Petitioners sought quashing of ECIR/PJZO/03/2022 and PMLA proceedings; the predicate FIR No.10/2022 initially alleged Sections 420, 409, 120-B IPC and Goa Public Gambling Act, but the chargesheet later dropped Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, which were the only scheduled offences under PMLA; court considered Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Indrani Patnaik that no PMLA prosecution can proceed without a scheduled offence (Paras 4-14, 17) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Quashing of ECIR and PMLA Proceedings - Jurisdictional Challenge - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Sections 3 and 4 - Petitioners contended they were not named in the FIR and no scheduled offence was alleged against them; respondent argued that Crime Branch communicated on 20/04/2023 that further investigation was taken up and an appropriate report would be filed, making the petitions premature; court was required to decide whether ECIR must be quashed or deferred (Paras 5-16) C) Criminal Procedure - Effect of Chargesheet Dropping Predicate Offences - Scheduled Offence Absence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420, 409, 120-B, 408; Goa Public Gambling Act, 1976, Sections 3,4; Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 66-D - Investigation resulted in chargesheet only under Sections 3 and 4 of Goa Public Gambling Act against three accused persons, with scheduled offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC dropped; this formed the basis for petitioners' argument that no PMLA offence could be made out against them (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether ECIR and PMLA proceedings can be quashed when police chargesheet in predicate FIR dropped all scheduled offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, leaving only offences under Goa Public Gambling Act, 1976; Whether writ petitions are premature pending further investigation.
Law Points
- Prosecution under PMLA requires existence of a scheduled offence
- if police chargesheet omits all scheduled offences
- no PMLA prosecution can continue
- persons not named in predicate FIR cannot be prosecuted under PMLA unless shown as accused of scheduled offence
- further investigation after chargesheet does not automatically revive PMLA proceedings
