Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 1: In a much publicized ED raid in the house of Lal Singh Ex-Minister, his wife Kanta Andotra seeking quashment of ECIR No. ECIR/JMSZO/04/2022, dated 31-03-2022, recorded by respondent No. 02, Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul after hearing Adv Rajesh Kotwal for the petitioner whereas DSGI Vishal Sharma for the Enforcement Directorate, directed ED to file response before November 16, 2023.
In the petition, petitioner RB Educational Trust through its Chairperson, Kanta Andotra after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) received a source information with regard to the encroachment of Public, Government and Forest Land in District Kathua by someone in connivance with the revenue and forest officials, a preliminary enquiry No. PE042020A0002 was conducted in this regard on 22-06-2020 by it. On the basis of a complaint made by the Sub-Inspector CBI, ACB, Vikas Ranol, FIR No. RC0042020A0005, for the alleged commission of offences, punishable under Sections 120-B and 5(1 )(d) r/w 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, was registered. That consequently a final chargesheet, for the commission of the aforesaid offences titled, "CBI v/s Kanta Andotra & Anr.", was filed by the CBI in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI Cases), Jammu, hereinafter to be referred as the trial Court.
The petitioner, thus, seeks indulgence of the court to summon the entire record, pertaining to the investigation, being conducted by the respondents, qua ECIR No. ECIR/JMSZO/04/2022 dated 31-03-2022, recorded by respondent No. 02 and for quashing the same being ultra vires the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, illegal v/ithout jurisdiction and non-est in law, inter-alia, on the following grounds that Sub-Section (1) (v) (i) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act defines the "Scheduled offence". As per law all the offences Specified under Parts A, 13 and C of the SCHEDULE of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are the scheduled offences A have look of Tart A, paragraph I of the SCHEDULE to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act would clearly show that the respondents can only take recourse to and investigate those offences which have been made punishable by the Indian Penal Code. It would be pertinent to mention here that the CBl had. after registering the FIR, investigated the matter under the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, svi. 2006 and the penal provisions of law defined under the Ranbir Penal Code. The respondents have, therefore, no jurisdiction in the instant case. BECAUSE the offence of money laundering postulates that there must be a predicate offence at the relevant point of time when the authorities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act commence the investigation. In the instant ease the trial court has disagreed and not accepted the final charge sheet of the CBl. On the contrary the trial court has directed fresh investigation in the matter under the supervision of a new officer of the CBl. There is, therefore, no scheduled offence which is required to be investigated by the respondents. The respondents are summoning the family members of the petitioner, including the petitioner and some other persons, for the investigation purposes without any authority of law and without jurisdiction. The respondents have even failed to collect any evidence with regard to the market value of the land in question, which as per the market value is less than one crore of rupees.
As per the admitted case of the prosecution (CBI) the petitioner is in possession of excessive land, as envisaged by Section 14 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. The CBI has placed on record all the sale deeds and the gift deeds pursuant to which the petitioner is allegedly retaining the excessive disputed land. The value of the entire land is reflected in the said documents. As per calculation the total value of the entire land is less than thirty lacs. As per the ECIR in question the petitioner has been charged for the alleged commission of offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Self attested copies of the sale deeds and the gift deeds are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexures-VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV and XVI respectively.As per Technical Circular No. 03 of 2020, dated 13-02-2020, issued by respondent No. 01, the money laundering investigation is to be done in cases where the value involved is 2^ crores or one crore. Since the value of the property in question, as per Section 2(l)(zb) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is less than thirty lacs, as such, the investigation being conducted by the respondents is without jurisdiction, nullity and, therefore, non-est in law. The proceedings conducted by the respondents are not only infringing the fundamental and legal rights of the petitioner but have resulted in abuse of process of law. These proceedings are, therefore, liable to be quashed, in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances.
It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the hon'ble court may kindly call for the entire record, pertaining to the investigation, being conducted by the respondents, qua ECIR No. ECIR/JMSZO/04/2022, dated 31-03-2022, recorded by respondent No. 02, and quash the same by exercising its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings, 1973, in the interest of justice. |
