Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.2(1), Clause (na) – Expression “proceedings” therein – Held: The expression “proceedings” occurring in Clause (na) of s.2(1) is contextual and is required to be given expansive meaning to include inquiry procedure followed by the Authorities of ED, the Adjudicating Authority, and the Special Court. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.2(1), Clause (na) –Expression “investigation” therein – Held: The expression “investigation” in Clause (na) of s.2(1) does not limit itself to the matter of investigation concerning the offence under the Act and is interchangeable with the function of “inquiry” to be undertaken by the Authorities under the Act. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.2(1), Clause (u), Explanation – Held: Explanation inserted to Clause (u) of s.2(1) does not travel beyond the main provision predicating tracking and reaching upto the property derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.3 – Ambit of – Held: s.3 has a wider reach and captures every process and activity, direct or indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy – Explanation inserted to s.3 by way of amendment of 2019 does not expand the purport of s.3 but is only clarificatory in nature – The expression “and” occurring in s.3 has to be construed as “or”, to give full play to the said provision so as to include “every” process or activity indulged into by anyone – The interpretation suggested, that only upon projecting or claiming the property in question as untainted property that the offence of s.3 would be complete, is rejected. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Prosecution on notional basis or assumption – If permissible – Held: The Authorities under the Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.5 – Validity of – Held: s.5 is constitutionally valid – It provides for a balancing arrangement to secure the interests of the person as also ensures that the proceeds of crime remain available to be dealt with in the manner provided by the Act. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.8(4) – Challenge to the validity of sub-section (4) of s.8 – Held: Is rejected subject to s.8 being invoked and operated in accordance with the meaning assigned to it – Direction u/s.8(4) for taking possession of the property in question before a formal order of confiscation is passed merely on the basis of confirmation of provisional attachment order, should be an exception and not a rule – That issue will have to be considered on case-to-case basis. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.17 – Challenge to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1) of s.17 – Rejected – Held: There are stringent safeguards provided in s.17 and Rules framed thereunder – Moreover, the pre-condition in the proviso to Rule 3(2) of the 2005 Rules cannot be read into s.17 after its amendment. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.18 – Challenge to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1) of s.18 – Rejected – Held: Safeguards are provided in s.18 – Amended provision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.19 – Challenge to the constitutional validity of s.19 – Rejected – Held: There are stringent safeguards provided in s.19 – The provision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.24 – Validity – Held: s.24 has reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the Act and cannot be regarded as manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.44 – Proviso in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of s.44 – Held: Is to be regarded as directory in nature and this provision is also read down to mean that the Special Court may exercise judicial discretion on case-to case basis. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.44 – Challenge to – Held: No merit in the challenge to s.44 being arbitrary or unconstitutional – However, the eventualities referred to in this section shall be dealt with by the Court concerned and by the Authority concerned in accordance with the interpretation given. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45(1) – Release on bail – Twin conditions in s.45(1) – Held: Reasons which weighed with this Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah case for declaring the twin conditions in s.45(1), as it stood at the relevant time, as unconstitutional in no way obliterated the provision from the statute book – It was open to the Parliament to cure the defect noted by this Court so as to revive the same provision in the existing form. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45 – Validity – The provision in the form of s.45, as applicable post amendment of 2018, is reasonable and has direct nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act and does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45 – Applicability – Prayer for bail – Held: As regards the prayer for grant of bail, irrespective of the nature of proceedings, including those under s.438 CrPC or even upon invoking the jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts, the underlying principles and rigours of s.45 may apply – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Invocation of s.436A CrPC – Permissibility – Held: Beneficial provision of s.436A CrPC could be invoked by the accused arrested for offence punishable under the Act – CrPC – s.436A.Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.50 – Process envisaged by s.50 – Held: Is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not “investigation” in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.48 – Authorities under the Act (referred to in s.48) – Held: They are not police officers as such. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Statements recorded by Authorities under the Act – Held: They are not hit by Art.20(3) or Art.21 of the Constitution – Constitution of India, 1950 – Arts. 20(3) and 21. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.63 – Validity – Held: s.63 providing for punishment regarding false information or failure to give information does not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Schedule to the Act – Inclusion or exclusion of any particular offence – Held: The inclusion or exclusion of any particular offence in the Schedule to the Act is a matter of legislative policy –The nature or class of any predicate offence has no bearing on the validity of the Schedule or any prescription thereunder. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.48 – Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) – Held: ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR under CrPC – ECIR is an internal document of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) – Fact that FIR in respect of scheduled offence has not been recorded does not come in the way of the Authorities referred to in s.48 to commence inquiry/ investigation for initiating “civil action” of “provisional attachment” of property being proceeds of crime – FIR. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) – Held: Supply of a copy of ECIR in every case to the person concerned is not mandatory, it is enough if Enforcement Directorate (ED) at the time of arrest, discloses the grounds of such arrest – However, when the arrested person is produced before the Special Court, it is open to the Special Court to look into the relevant records presented by the authorised representative of ED for answering the issue of need for his/her continued detention in connection with the offence of money laundering. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Enforcement Directorate (ED) Manual – Held: Even when ED manual is not to be published being an internal departmental document issued for the guidance of the Authorities (ED officials), the department ought to explore the desirability of placing information on its website which may broadly outline the scope of the authority of the functionaries under the Act and measures to be adopted by them as also the options/ remedies available to the person concerned before the Authority and before the Special Court. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Vacancies in Appellate Tribunal – Executive to take corrective measures in this regard expeditiously. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Argument about proportionality of punishment with reference to the nature of scheduled offence – Held: Is wholly unfounded.