Money Laundering Case-Territorial Jurisdiction cannot be decided in Writ Petition: SC [Read Judgement]

The division Bench of the Supreme Court has dismissed a writ petition related to money laundering case holding that the territorial jurisdiction could not be decided in writ petition.

The petitioner Rana Ayyub during the pandemic, initiated a crowdfunding campaign through an online crowdfunding platform named “Ketto”. In connection with the same, the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate initiated an enquiry against the petitioner under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1992.A complaint was lodged in Ghaziabad for alleged offences under Sections 403, 406, 418 and 420 IPC read with Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 4 of the Black Money Act. Enforcement Directorate, the Delhi Zone registered a complaint in the Court of the Special Judge at Ghaziabad.

 In a second writ petition filed by the petitioner, the High Court of Delhi restrained the Directorate of Enforcement from taking further steps under Section 8 of the PMLA. Thereafter, the Court of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI Ghaziabad, passed an order taking cognizance of the complaint lodged by the respondent and summoning the petitioner.

The petitioner has challenged, whether the trial of the offence of money-laundering should follow the trial of the scheduled/predicate offence or vice versa?  And whether the Court of the Special Judge can be said to have exercised extra-territorial jurisdiction, even though the offence alleged, was not committed within the jurisdiction of the said Court?

Vrinda Grover, on behalf of the petitioner contended that that no part of the alleged offence of money-laundering was committed within the jurisdiction of the Special Court. He further contented that that the lodging of the complaint at Ghaziabad was an abuse of the process of the court.

Tushar Mehta, who appeared for revenue submitted that the complaint of money-laundering should follow the complaint in respect of the scheduled offence. He also contended that the petitioner was alleged to have received money through an online crowdfunding platform and that there were several victims within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the Special Judge who had contributed money.

The Division Bench of Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice J.B. Pardiwala dismissed the writ petition observing that, “territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition, especially when there is a serious factual dispute about the place/places of commission of the offence. Hence, this question should be raised by the petitioner before the Special Court, since an answer to the same would depend upon evidence as to the places where any one or more of the processes or activities mentioned in Section 3 were carried out. Therefore, giving liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction before the Trial Court.”

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates