DEEPAK GUPTA Vs. THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

(2.) Petitioner in this writ petition assails the initiation proceeding under Sec. 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the Act, 2002') and consequential show cause notice dtd. 19/6/2015 under Annexure-5. He further prays to keep the said proceeding in abeyance till completion of trial in VGR No.05 of 2013 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Keonjhar.

(3.) Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the initiation proceeding under Sec. 8 of the Act, 2002 is per se illegal as the Petitioner being an accused in the proceeding under the Act 2002 is compelled to disclose the sources of income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which, he has acquired the property, provisionally attached. He can make such a disclosure only at the stage of recording of the statement of the accused. Trial under the Act, 2002 is continuing and it has not yet reached the stage of recording the accused statement. At this stage, if the Petitioner discloses his defence, it will be utilized against him to prove the charges, which is indirect violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, submits that the proceedings initiated under Sec. 8 of the Act, 2002 should wait till completion of the trial in VGR No.05 of 2013 (supra). It is further submitted that in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, Hon'ble Apex Court held the provisions of the Act, 2002 to be intra vires. But, at para-159, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under