V SURYANARAYHANA PRABHAKARA GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners herein are the wife and husband, who seek a writ of mandamus for declaring the Provisional attachment Orders dated 21-10-2010 as illegal and violative of Article 20 of Constitution of India and further, the action of the 4th respondent in initiating Adjudication under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (henceforth referred to as the PML Act), as bad in law.

(2.) IT is stated that the 1st petitioner was working, at the material point of time, as Senior Vice President & Global Head of Internal Audit of M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited (henceforth referred to as the Company for brevity). IT is stated that the C.B.C.I.D., Hyderabad has registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2009 on 09-01-2009 for offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the then Chairman of the Company, its Directors, Auditors and others. IT is further stated that the said complaint has been forwarded to the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, on 12-01-2009. IT is further submitted that pursuant to a notification dated 16-02-2009, the investigation has been entrusted to C.B.I. and the case was registered as C.C.No.187 of 2009 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and upon transfer to Special Court-cum-XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is numbered as C.C.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2010. The 1st petitioner is arrayed as Accused 10 in the said criminal case. IT is further averred that the Directorate of Enforcement moved Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2010 in C.C.No.1 of 2010 under Section 57 of the PML Act, for recording the statements of the 1st petitioner and others under the said Act. The said petition was ordered on 23-04-2010 allowing recording of the statements in the presence of the counsel for the accused. IT is further stated that challenging the correctness and validity of the said order, the 1st petitioner herein filed Crl.R.C.No.907 of 2010 in this Court and while directing not to record further statements, the said Revision is posted for further consideration and it is still pending in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Venkateswara Rao would contend that under the Schedule to the PML Act, offences under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC are not included at the time when the said offences are alleged to have been committed by the 1st petitioner herein and hence, the question of proceeding against the petitioners under the provisions of the PML Act, would not arise. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the crime is registered against the 1st petitioner herein on 09-01-2009 under Section 420 IPC. As on that date, the said offence under Section 420 IPC is not forming part of the Schedule appended to the PML Act and hence, the question of registering a case under the PML Act against the 1st petitioner, would not arise. THE learned counsel would further submit that the CBI has filed its charge sheet against the 1st petitioner (arraying him as A-10) on 22-11-2009 and the charge sheet clearly mentioned that the 1st petitioner herein has been charged for the offence said to have been committed by him under Section 120-B r/w Section 420 IPC only and that an amendment of the Schedule appended to the PML Act has been brought into force on 01-06-2009 incorporating offences of Sections 120-B and 420 IPC therein. THErefore, as on the date when the C.B.C.I.D. registered the crime on 09-01-2009, offences under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC not having been included in the Schedule appended to the PML Act, the amendment brought on 01-06-2009 incorporating those offences would amount to an ex post law and hence, the petitioners cannot be charged under the PML Act at all. THE learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance, in support of his contentions, upon judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in RAO SHIV BAHADUR SINGH AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH AIR 1953 SC 394and G.P.NAYYAR v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) (1979) 2 SCC 593 as well as the judgment of a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court rendered in ABDUL HALEEM v. STATE, OPPOSITE PARTY 1962(2) CRI. L.J. 414 and another judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court rendered in PAREED LUBBA MUHAMMED LUBBA v. K.K. NEELAMBARAN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA PANCHAYAT AIR 1967 KERALA155.