Revision challenging cognizance taken on an Enforcement Directorate complaint under PMLA. No appearance for petitioner despite repeated opportunities. Relying on a Delhi High Court ruling that a Special Court under PMLA need not record reasons for cognizance on an agency complaint, the Court declined interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
Criminal Revision Case No.621 of 2018
P.Augustine
.. Petitioner/3rd Accused
v.
The Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement Chennai Zonal Office 3rd Floor, C Block Murugesa Naicker Complex No.84, Greams Road Chennai 600 006
.. Respondent/Complainant
Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in C.C.No.4 of 2018, taking cognizance of the offence by ordering that the complaint be taken on file as C.C.No.4 of 2018 and issuance of process be revised and the complaint be dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
For Petitioner :: No appearance
Page No.1/7
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2018
ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The case on hand was listed for final hearing on 08.11.2024. Since none appeared for the petitioner, it was directed to be listed for hearing on 12.11.2024. On 12.11.2024 also, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and again it was listed for hearing on 15.11.2024. The matter though listed had not reached for hearing and it was taken up for hearing on 19.11.2024. On that day also, there was no representation. In order to give further opportunity, the matter was taken up for hearing on 21.11.2024 and none appeared for the petitioner. Again it has been listed today (25.11.2024). When the matter is called, there is no representation for the petitioner.
Page No.2/7
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2018
dated 25.04.2018 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai taking cognizance of the offence by ordering that the complaint be taken on file in C.C.No.4 of 2018.
“55. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep S.Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62 , wherein, it was held that provisions of CrPC would apply to the procedure undertaken before a Special Court enacted under a special statute unless the said special statute explicitly prohibits the application of provisions of the CrPC. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:
“ 58....Moreover, bearing in mind the objective behind prescribing that cognizance has to be taken of the offence and not the offender, a mere change in the form of the cognizance order would not alter the effect of the order for any injustice to be meted out.
***
Page No.3/7
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2018
66. Therefore, on a combined reading of Sections 4 and 5 CrPC along with Section 30-C of the MMDR Act, it is apparent that the procedure prescribed under the Code shall be applicable to proceedings before the Special Court unless the MMDR Act provides anything to the contrary. These provisions incorporate the principle of express repeal – i.e., unless any provision of the CrPC is expressly repealed by the provisions of the MMDR Act, the procedure prescribed under the CrPC would apply to the proceedings before the Special Court. Provisions of the petitioning Creditor At, the Pocso Act and the NIA Act which expressly provide that the Special Court may try offences under the statute along with other offences is only clarificatory. It is settled law that while contextually interpreting a provision, reference to other statutes which are pari materia can be made. [Harshad S. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 257 : 2001 SCC (Crl.) 1447]. However, since the provisions in the similar statute on combined trial are only clarificatory, the reference to external aids offer no support to the argument of the appellant.
***
68. Since there is no express provision that excludes the application of Section 220 CrPC, it needs to be examined if the MMDR Act has by necessary implication excluded the application of Section 220 CrPC. In this context, it needs to be determined if Section 30-B of the MMDR Act while establishing the Special Court for the offences under Section 4 of the MMDR AcT, by necessary implication excludes the application of Section 220 CrPC.”
Page No.4/7
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2018
66, it is pertinent to state here that it is not necessary for the Special Court under the PMLA to record its reasons for the cognizance since the said complaint is filed by an investigating agency unlike the private complaint under Section 190 of the CrPC (now Section 210 of the BNSS).”
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.) Neutral Citation : yes/no 25.11.2024
ss
To
Page No.5/7
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2018
Page No.6/7
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2018
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ss
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2018
25.11.2024
Page No.7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order dated 25.04.2018 taking cognizance and issuing process in C.C.No.4 of 2018 could be set aside in revision.
Whether the summon issued to appear before the Special Court furnished a cause for instituting proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjay Aggarwal v. Directorate of EnforcementRelied on
Crl.M.C.No.3146 of 2022 & Crl.M.A.No.13287 of 2022
3 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Augustine
The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai Zonal Office
S.M.Subramaniam
M.Jothiraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
