YASH TUTEJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Taken up for final hearing as notice has already been issued on the petitions. In substance, in these Writ Petitions, the only challenge that survives is to the complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement under Sec. 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, "the PMLA") concerning ECIR/RPZO/11/2022.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the alleged scheduled offences on which the complaint is based are under various Sec. of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Ss. 120B, 191, 199, 200 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC"). It is also not in dispute that except for Sec. 120B of the IPC, none of the offences are scheduled offences within the meaning of clause (y) of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 2 of the PMLA. This Court, in the decision in the case of Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586, recorded its conclusions in paragraph 31, which reads thus:

(3.) Hence, the offence punishable under Sec. 120B of the IPC could become a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy alleged is of committing an offence which is specifically included in the Schedule to the PMLA. In this case, admittedly, the offences alleged in the complaint except Sec. 120-B of IPC are not the scheduled offences. Conspiracy to commit any of the offences included in the Schedule has not been alleged in the complaint. ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, which is the subject matter of the complaint, is based on the offences relied upon in the complaint. As the conspiracy alleged is of the commission of offences which are not the scheduled offences, the offences mentioned in the complaint are not scheduled offences within the meaning of clause (y) of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 2 of the PMLA.