KARAMPAL GOYAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:

(2.) In support of the petition learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the impugned order dated 29.05.2014 (Annexure P-11) and zimni dated 29.05.2014 (Annexure P- 12) passed by learned Special Judge, S.B.S. Nagar are liable to be quashed and set aside since the trial Court could not have committed the case in question to the Court of special designated Judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (in short, PML Act) looking to the scheme of Section 44(a) and (c) of the PML Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the impugned orders as well as Section 44 and in particular clause (c) thereof violates Article 20 of the Constitution of India. He contended that the petitioners cannot be tried or convicted from same offence more than once and the trial by two different courts in the same offence cannot be allowed.

(3.) Per contra learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and submitted that the impugned orders are legal, correct and proper and cannot be interfered with. Mrs. Ranjana Shahi, Advocate for respondent No.2 relied upon a Divisions Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Directorate of Enforcement v. State of Punjab and others, passed in CRR No.4772 of 2016 and submitted that this Court has upheld the action of committal of the case to the Special Court under the PML Act. She then contended that notification dated 08.06.2011 issued by Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice (Judicial Branch), empowers all the Sessions Judges and all Additional Sessions Judges to act as Special Judges and the said notification holds the field for over a period of six years. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.