Trial courts cannot initiate proceeding under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering (PML) Act, 2002, based on private complaints and they can do so only on the complaint by officers authorised under the PML Act.
Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav passed the order while allowing a petition filed by MLC Shashil G. Namoshi and three others, all former office-bearers of the Kalaburagi-based Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society.
The petitioners had questioned the legality of summons issued by a trial court in Mangaluru to them on taking cognisance of an offence based on a private complaint lodged in 2016. The complaints, O.H. Amresh of Kalaburagi and Linganagouda of Bengaluru had alleged that the petitioners, who were former office bearers of the society had indulged in money laundering.
On analysing the PML Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), the High Court said that it is clear that the PML Act, being a special statute, the procedure prescribed would prevail over the general procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C where it is at variance with the general procedure.
“Once the specific procedure prescribed under the PML Act provides for taking of cognizance only upon a complaint in writing made by a specified person, the question of falling back upon the procedure under the Cr.P.C to entertain a private complaint as envisaged under Section 190 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. does not arise, in light of the rider to the applicability of Cr.P.C in Section 46 of the PML Act,” the High Court observed.
The trial court cannot take notice of a complaint by private persons without the complaint being presented through the authorities as specified in the Section 45(1) of the PML Act, the High Court said while setting aside the complaint and the process initiated by the trial court.
