SAMSUDDIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The primary issue in these cases is the constitutional validity of the criminal proceedings initiated under Sec. 3 of the Prevention of MoneyLaundering Act, 2002 ('PMLA', for short). According to the appellant/petitioners, at the time when the act of money laundering was allegedly committed, either (i) the PMLA itself was not in force, or (ii) the predicate offences were not included in the schedule of the said Act, and thus all the proceedings initiated against them by the Enforcement Directorate are in the teeth of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court, upholding such an action initiated by the Enforcement Directorate. All the above Writ Petitions are placed before us for disposal together with the Writ Appeal, as the petitioners also challenge the investigation and further proceedings under Sec. 3 of the PMLA on the above grounds.

(3.) We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioners as well as the Retainer Counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate.