DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Vs. BABULAL AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Facts of the case in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the respondent in the capacity of an IAS Officer made unlawful gain and amassed huge property and got opened 446 bank accounts in the name of the villagers, thereby huge amount was deposited in the accounts and the same was used for investment in the shares of M/s Prime Ispat Limited, upon which a case was registered by the petitioner against the respondent under Ss. 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2002' ) consequent to the FIR registered by the Chhattisgarh State Anti Corruption Bureau in this regard after the search conducted by the Income Tax Department, thereafter investigation was initiated by the petitioner under the aforesaid Act, but the respondent was not cooperating with the investigation, upon which various summons were issued to him and ultimately he was arrested by the petitioner thereafter, he was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dtd. 27/1/2021 passed in MCRC No.78/2021. After investigation, the petitioner filed prosecution complaint (PC) on 4/1/2021 in the Court of 4th ASJ (Special Judge) PMLA, wherein learned Special Judge also heard argument of learned counsel for the petitioner prior to registration of case but learned Special Judge vide impugned order has provided opportunity of hearing to the respondent (accused), which is not in accordance with the Act of 2002, hence the same has been challenged by the petitioner by way of the instant petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Prevention of the Money Laundering Act of 2002 is a special statute enacted by the legislature in order to curb the menace of money laundering in India. It is further contended that after due investigation, the petitioner has filed complaint against the respondent under Sec. 3/4 of the Act of 2002. The aforesaid Act do not contemplate any provision with regard to providing opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance, despite that the learned court below vide impugned order has provided opportunity of hearing to the respondent. It is further contended that as per the provisions of the Act, 2002, Special Courts have been deemed to be a Court of Session and even in the provisions of Cr.P.C., Chapter XV and XVI, no provisions have been provided to hear the accused before the registration of the case. Hence, order impugned is liable to be quashed and relief may be granted to the petitioner.