Top Quotes From The Top Court: Supreme Court Weekly Review [February 6-12]

As promised, we bring to you a compilation of the most impactful observations made by the Supreme Court, a judicial ‘action recap’, as it were! Here are our top picks from the week starting from Monday, February 6: 1. Money-laundering offence not limited to place where proceeds come into possession “It is clear that even if the involvement is in one or more of the following activities or processes, namely, concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting it as untainted property, claiming it as untainted property, the offence of money-laundering will be made out. An offence of money-laundering comprises two essential limbs, namely, involvement in any process or activity; and connection of such process or activity to the proceeds of crime…Thus, the involvement of a person in any one or more of certain processes or activities connected with the proceeds of crime, constitutes the offence of money-laundering…In other words, a person may first, acquire proceeds of crime in one place, second, keep the same in his possession in another place, third, conceal the same in a third place, and fourth, use the same in a fourth place. The area in which each one of these places is located, will be the area in which the offence of money laundering has been committed. To put it differently, the area in which the place of acquisition of the proceeds of crime is located or the place of keeping it in possession is located or the place in which it is concealed is located or the place in which it is used is located, will be the area in which the offence has been committed. In addition, the definition of the words ‘proceeds of crime’ focuses on ‘deriving or obtaining a property’ as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Therefore, the area in which the property is derived or obtained or even held or concealed will be the area in which the offence of money laundering is committed.” [Justice V. Ramasubramanian in Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86] 2. Trial of money-laundering offence follows trial of predicate offence “it is contended by the Solicitor General that under the scheme of the Act, the complaint of money-laundering should follow the complaint in respect of the scheduled offence. Section 44 deals with the question of territorial jurisdiction of the special court. At the outset, the section takes note of two different contingencies, namely, cases where the scheduled offence as well as the offence of money-laundering are committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the same special court, and cases where the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence, is other than the special court which has taken cognizance of the complaint of the offence of money-laundering…By prescribing that an offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA and any scheduled offence connected to the same shall be triable by the special court constituted for the area in which ‘the offence’ has been committed, Section 44(1)(a) makes it crystal clear that it is the special court, which will be empowered to try even the scheduled offence connected to the same. After mapping out/laying down such a general but fundamental rule, the Act then proceeds to deal with a more complicated situation. The question as to what happens if the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence is other than the special court which has taken cognizance of the offence of money-laundering, is what is sought to be answered by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 44. If the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence is different from the special court which has taken cognizance of the offence of money-laundering, then the authority authorised to file a complaint under PMLA should make an application to the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence. On the application so filed, the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence, should commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the special court which has taken cognizance of the complaint of money-laundering. Therefore, it is clear that the trial of the scheduled offence should take place in the special court which has taken cognizance of the offence of money-laundering. In other words, the trial of the scheduled offence, insofar as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, should follow the trial of the offence of money-laundering and not vice versa.” [Justice V. Ramasubramanian in Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86] 3. Once deficiency in service is proved, suitable compensation should be awarded “The respondent visited the saloon of the Hotel ITC Maurya, New Delhi for hair styling so that she would have a clean and groomed appearance before the interview panel where she was to appear after a week…The respondent gave specific instructions to the hair...

Top Quotes From The Top Court: Supreme Court Weekly Review [February 6-12]

Awstika Das

Tags