# Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 659
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-23
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 24521 of 2018
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45256
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002 ("PMLA, 2002") - Section 45 (1) -
Sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
Sections 120 B, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468,
471 of IPC-Retrospective operation of
Penal Statutes-It is settled law that if
even one of the offences under which the
charge is found to have been made out,
then it cannot be denied that cognizance
could have been taken by the Court
concerned
for having
committed
an
offence under PMLA of 2002- If offence
under certain other sections of I.P.C. or
P.C. Act are found not made out in
respect of the present accused during the
period in question due to penal provision
not being available then the said fact may
be taken into consideration by the Trial
Court at the time of trial and take
appropriate decision in that regard-
Offence
under
Section
467
was
punishable under PMLA of 2002 with
effect since 1st July, 2005-Other offences
imputed
against
the
applicants
incorporated by the Amendment Act 2009
in Part-B of the PMLA,2002-Subsequently
by the Act No. 2 of 2013 the offences
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were included in Part -A in Paragraph 1
of the Act. (Para 11 & 12)

Criminal
Application
u/s
482
Cr.P.C
rejected. (E-3)

## Text

1 All. Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
659
Applicant-1, Onkar Singh, he caught
Kurta of complainant and started beating
him. If by one hand Applicant-1 had
caught Kurta of complainant he could
not have beaten complainant by another
hand if he was holding Danda in his
second hand. The complaint nowhere
shows
that
in
examination
hall
Applicant-1,
Onkar
Singh,
beat
complainant with Danda. Similarly he
has said that security personnel brought
him outside the examination hall and
started beating with Lathi and Danda,
and when he fall down, also with their
boots. This part of complaint has not
been found correct. Therefore, complaint
in respect of other ten security personnel
has been rejected. With regard to beating
by Danda, I have already discussed that
statement
of
complainant
is
not
consistent and trustworthy. Therefore,
there was no "unlawful assembly" in
terms of Section 141 IPC and that being
so there could not have been any offence
under Section 147 IPC. Court below has
erred in law in summoning applicants
under Section 147 IPC.

37.

Prima
facie
this
Court,
therefore, is satisfied that no offence
under Sections 147, 323, 325, 426 IPC is
made out and that being so summoning
of Applicant-1, Onkar Singh under
aforesaid Sections was patently illegal.
Court below has passed orders without
application of mind and has clearly erred
in law.

38. In the result, application is
allowed. Orders dated 26.02.1998 and
02.07.1998 as well as further proceedings
in Case No. 1277 of 1995, under Sections
147, 323, 325, 426 IPC are hereby
quashed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 659

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 24521 of 2018

Rajendra Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Akhilesh Kumar, Sri Ajay Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., A.S.G.I.

A. Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002 ("PMLA, 2002") - Section 45 (1) -
Sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
Sections 120 B, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468,
471 of IPC-Retrospective operation of
Penal Statutes-It is settled law that if
even one of the offences under which the
charge is found to have been made out,
then it cannot be denied that cognizance
could have been taken by the Court
concerned
for having
committed
an
offence under PMLA of 2002- If offence
under certain other sections of I.P.C. or
P.C. Act are found not made out in
respect of the present accused during the
period in question due to penal provision
not being available then the said fact may
be taken into consideration by the Trial
Court at the time of trial and take
appropriate decision in that regard-
Offence
under
Section
467
was
punishable under PMLA of 2002 with
effect since 1st July, 2005-Other offences
imputed
against
the
applicants
incorporated by the Amendment Act 2009
in Part-B of the PMLA,2002-Subsequently
by the Act No. 2 of 2013 the offences
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were included in Part -A in Paragraph 1
of the Act. (Para 11 & 12)

Criminal
Application
u/s
482
Cr.P.C
rejected. (E-3)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh-I, J.)

(1) This Criminal Misc. Application
u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with a
prayer to quash the Impugned Summoning
Order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the
Learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad in
Complaint Case No. 4 of 2018, Assistant
Director Vs. Rajendra Singh & others
along with all consequential proceedings
of the said complaint case pending in the
above Court and simultaneously prayer is
also made to stay the proceedings of the
case.

(2) The facts of the case as narrated
in the affidavit filed in support of the
application are that complaint had been
filed by opposite party no. 2 on 27.03.2018
against the applicant & others under
Section 45 (1) of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred
to as "PMLA, 2002"), in the court of
learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad with a
prayer that cognizance of offence of
money laundering for violation of Section
3 of the said Act, may be taken against the
accused persons and they may be punished
under Section 4 of the said Act and also
for issuing order for confiscation of the
property attached under Section 5 of the
Act (PMLA) and confirmed under Section
8 of the Act in terms of Section 8(5) of the
Act. The said complaint was registered as
Complaint Case No. 4 of 2018 ( Assistant
Director Vs. Rajendra Singh & others). It
is
further
mentioned
that
Special
Investigation Team (S.I.T.), U. P. had
registered a Case Crime No. 7 of 2010 on
27.08.2010 in pursuance of the order dated
03.12.2010 passed by Lucknow Bench of
this Court in Writ Petition No. 10503 of
2009 (Vishwanath Chaturvedi Vs. Union
of India & others) against the 36 accused
persons. The allegation made by S.I.T. was
that during the period 2004-05 and 200506, the food grains for Public Distribution
System (in short PDS) were diverted to
black market, which caused a huge loss to
the Government exchequer to the tune of
Rs.
80.64
lakhs
and
corresponding
wrongful gains to the accused persons.
Subsequently the case was taken up by
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation
by
registering FIR No. RC0062010A0025 on
14.12.2010,
and
investigation
was
conducted, thereafter charge sheet was
submitted on 01.05.2012 against the
present accused/applicant along with two
others namely, Ram Murat Yadav, the then
godown incharge and Shiv Bux Singh
(now deceased) under Sections 120B, 406,
409, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section
13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act (in short
P.C. Act) for the offence said to have been
committed
during
the
period
from
December 2004 to June 2006. The role
assigned to the applicant is that initially
late Shiv Bux Singh had issued 16 bearer
cheques amounting to Rs. 71.84 lakhs
from his own account No. SF-160 in
Punjab National Bank, Nawabganj Branch,
Gonda in favour of the applicant Rajendra
Singh. Thereafter, the applicant collected
the 16 bearer cheques by late Shiv Bux
Singh and the same were received in cash
as per the details given in the table
mentioned in the affidavit. Thereafter the
applicant
started
making
banker's
cheques/demand drafts in favour of
different kotedars of Block Godown,
Nawabganj, Gonda and submitted the
1 All. Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
661
same to Food Corporation of India, Gonda
and lifted the PDS foodgrains and in
connivance with Late Shiv Bux Singh and
others, he sold the same into black market
during the year 2004-06. He also used
different bank accounts of Subhash Singh,
Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Bhim Singh and
Kamlawati for preparing the banker's
cheques/demand drafts in bulk in the name
of the different kotedars for lifting PDS
foodgrains and subsequently by selling the
same in black market in connivance with
other co-accused for wrongful gains to
themselves and causing wrongful loss to
the Government exchequer. The offence is
committed by the applicant under Sections
120B, 420, 467, 471 being scheduled
offence as mentioned in Part - A of the
schedule of PMLA, 2002. On the basis of
C.B.I. Case No. RC0062010A0025, a case
has also been registered under ECIR. No.
ECIR/05/PMLA/VSZO/2011
on
28.02.2011 and the relevant documents
which were called for from C.B.I. revealed
the role of the accused in offence of
Money Laundering. As regards the role of
Rajendra Singh (present applicant), it is
further mentioned that he was a kotedar
attached with Blcok Godown, Nawabganj,
Godna who in connivance with the late
Shiv Bux Singh, Ram Murat Ydav and
Uday Pratap Singh got prepared banker's
cheques/demand drafts in favour of
various kotedars and lifted the food grains
from Food Corporation of India, Gonda
and diverted the same into black market
illegally for wrongful gain to himself and
causing wrongful loss to the Government
exchequer. He made expenditures towards
purchase of five trucks and two plots
situated at Parao, New Cold Storage
Chauraha, Nawabganj, District Gonda and
also constructed a Godown on the plots
situated at Parao, which are not in
conformity with his legal known sources
of income and hence could be directly
attributed to the wrongful gains acquired
by him by diversion and selling the PDS
foodgrains in black market. He projected
the proceedings of crime as untainted in
his statement recorded under Section 50 of
PMLA and admitted that out of Rs. 3.63
crores (aproax.) received from late Shiv
Bux
Singh,
he
prepared
banker's
cheques/drafts in favour of different
kotedars for an amount of Rs. 2.53 crores
and 92 lakhs was returned by him to Late
Shiv Bux Singh and rest of the amount,
i.e., Rs. 18 lakhs was retained by him as
commission and out of this money he used
4 lakhs to purchase a plot at Parao, during
2005 and the rest amount had been used by
him for purchasing 5 trucks and paying the
installments of those trucks. He also
admitted that he had constructed a godown
on the purchased plot during the year
2005-06 by taking loan amounting to Rs.
17 lakhs from one Atma Prakash Singh in
piece-meal and the said godown was
mortgaged as collateral security with the
Bank of Baroda, Faizabad in lieu of the
said loan. The said plot and the godown
have been provisionally attached under
Section 5 (1) of PMLA, 2002 by
mentioning that these properties were
procured from the proceeds of the crime
which he committed in the form of illegal
diversion and sale of PDS foodgrains in
the black market. The Adjudicating
Authority in its confirmation order dated
01.09.2017 has recorded that the accused
has committed the Scheduled Offences
and
upheld
the
attachment
of
the
properties of the accused. It is also
mentioned that the C.B.I. has shown
recovery of articles in the charge sheet that
is 4 ATY cards, 5 Quota Cards, 3 Bank
Cheques, 10 Counter Foils of demand
draft, 8 Photocopy of the demand
draft/banker's cheques, 74 Carbon copies
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the TD slips, Pass-Book of Account No.
2982, 190 Sheets of daily demand draft
and 119 Sheets of demand draft and on the
basis of aforesaid material he has been
made accused in the aforesaid scam,
although this material does not indicate
any commission of crime. It is further
mentioned that the applicant/accused was
not shopkeeper/kotedar at the relevant
time i.e. the year 2004-05 to 2005-06, the
period when he is alleged to have diverted
foodgrains from the godown for black
marketing. The only charge that is
appearing against him is that he prepared
number of banker's cheques from his
account in the name of several kotedars for
the purpose of lifting foodgrains and the
said money was given by the co-accused
Late Shiv Bux Singh by cheques. This
allegation is wholly unreliable because no
shopkeeper/kotedar is alleged to have
raised any objection for a period of two
years, moreover no card holder came
forward with any compliant before any
authority in this regard. The applicant
being a private person could not be charge
sheeted for the offence punishable under
the provisions of P.C. Act. It is further
mentioned that initially applicant's name
did not appear in the FIR but he has been
made accused during further investigation
by C.B.I. He is alleged to have received
illegal benefit of Rs. 30-35 lakhs (approx.)
which is being alleged to be proceeds of
crime (P.O.C.) which is alleged to have
been revealed in his admission made in
statement under Section 50 of PMLA,
2002 on 15.09.2016 and the statement of
Late Shiv Bux Singh made on 20.09.2016.
It is further mentioned that the applicant
has preferred an appeal under Section 26
of PMLA of 2002 challenging the order of
the
Adjudicating
Authority
dated
01.09.2017 whereby his properties were
attached along with an application for
condonation of delay. Further it is
mentioned that in the case filed by C.B.I.
against him, he has got himself bailed out,
however, his discharge application was
rejected by C.B.I. Court vide order dated
25.01.2016, against which he has preferred
a Criminal Revision No. 208 of 2016
before Lucknow Bench, which is still
pending and stay order has been passed
therein. Further it is mentioned that the
learned trial Court has failed to appreciate
the fact that applicant had borrowed Rs. 17
lakhs from one Mr. Atma Prakash Singh
and thereafter he took loan from the Bank
and the loan taken from Atma Prakash
Singh was returned. Further it was also
ignored by the Trial Court that whatever
money was deposited in the account of the
applicant, the same was given as demand
draft to the said authority and that the
applicant had never mis-utilized the said
fund for personal use. It is also ignored
that the attachment order passed by the
Adjudicating Authority has been appealed
against which is pending before the
Appellate Court at New Delhi and,
therefore, the complainant ought to have
waited.

(3) Further it is mentioned that it was
evident that the offences alleged to have
committed by the applicant, belong to the
period
prior
to
01.07.2005,
when
admittedly PMLA, 2002 was not in force.
Even after the enforcement of the said Act
on 01.07.2005, the offences under I.P.C.
alleged to have been committed by him
were included in the scheduled offence
with effect from 01.06.2009 in as much as
Scheduled
Offences
mentioned
in
Paragraph-1, (offences under the Indian
Penal Code) given in Part A, have come
into force with effect from 01.06.2009, as
such when the offences alleged to have
been committed by him fall during the
1 All. Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
663
period of year 2004 to 2006, the Scheduled
Offences covered under I.P.C. which came
into effect, w.e.f., 01.06.2009, could not
have been treated to have committed by
him. The PMLA is a penal statute,
therefore, it can have no retrospective or
retroactive operation, as the same would
be in teeth of the provision made in Article
20 (1) of Constitution of India. No person
can be inflicted penalty greater than what
could have been inflicted under the law at
the time when the offence was committed,
is settled position of law. Thus, in above
conspectus
the
impugned
order
is
absolutely against the provisions of law
which needs to be quashed.

(4) Learned counsel for the applicant
has vehemently argued on the point that in
view of the proceedings of the C.B.I.
Court having been stayed by this Court
and the order dated 1.9.2017 attaching the
property, passed by the Adjudicating
Authority having been challenged in
appeal which is pending before the
Appellate Authority, and also in the face
of fact that on the date when the offence is
alleged to have been committed by the
applicant, the said offences were not part
of the schedule appended to the PMLA,
2002 hence could not have been treated
punishable under
PMLA, 2002,
the
applicant could not have been prosecuted
under the PMLA of 2002 and, therefore,
the impugned order deserves to be
quashed.

(5) Learned counsel for the applicant
has relied upon the judgment and order
dated 13/07/2017 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Cri. O.P.
Nos.10497 and 10500 of 2017, Shri Ajay
Kumar
Gupta
and
3
Others
vs
Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) and 2
Others, in which in the first petition prayer
was made to call for the records in
Provisional
Attachment
Order
No.
09/2017
dated
07/04/2017
in
ECIR/CEZO/08/2015,
Chennai
Zone
passed by the second respondent and
quash the same, while in the other petition
prayer was made to call for records in
Original Complaint O.C. No. 855 of 2017
filed by the second respondent before the
Hon'ble
Chairperson
Adjudicating
Authority, the first respondent under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002, and quash the same.

(A) The facts of the above case
were that the first petitioner was working
as Asstt. Commissioner of Customs and
Central Excise, Chennai, who resigned
from service w.e.f. 14/4/2014. While he
was working as an appraiser in Customs
House, Chennai, Deputy Superintendent of
Police, CBI had filed an F.I.R. No. RCMA
1/2005 A/0031 on 29/06/2005 for alleged
possession
of
assets
and
pecuniary
resources in the name of first petitioner
and his family members for alleged
commission of offences under sections 13
(2) read with 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The final report was
submitted under sections 173 (2) Cr. P.C.
on 13/01/2009 by third respondent before
the Principal Special Judge for CBI cases,
Chennai, in C.C. No. 18 of 2009 for
offences punishable under sections 13 (2)
read with sections 13 (1) (e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
against first petitioner and under sections
109 of IPC read with 13 (2) read with 13
(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 against 2nd petitioner. Check period
was shown as from 01/05/1997 to
30/06/2005. The 3rd and 4th petitioners
were not arrayed as accused in the above
C.C. No. 18 of 2009. The trial was under
progress in the court of 14th Additional
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Special Judge, CBI cases and presently
investigating officer, PW 74 was being
cross-examined by the defence. In the
meantime, after 6 years of the aforesaid
alleged
offence
of
Prevention
of
Corruption Act, which is a scheduled
office under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, the 2nd respondent
registered
an
Enforcement
Case
Information Report and also sent summons
to petitioners 1 and 2.

(B) The contention made before
the court by the petitioners was that as per
charge sheet the offences were committed
between 01/05/1997 to 30/06/2005 and
during this period Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 did not come in
force as the same was made enforceable
w.e.f. 01/04/2005.

(C) It was observed by the High
Court of Madras that at the time of the
alleged commission of offences by the 1st
and
2nd
petitioners
i.e.
prior
to
01/07/2005, the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act was not in force. Even
after 01/07/2005, the offences were not
included in the scheduled offences till
01/06/2009. The charge sheet is dated
13/01/2009, even on that date, Prevention
of Corruption Act was not included in the
scheduled list of offences. Therefore, it
was held that if retrospective effect is
given to any statute of penal nature, that
will
directly
be
in
conflict
with
fundamental rights of the citizen enshrined
in Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of
India. It was further held that admittedly,
the 2nd respondent filed the case only
based on the charge- sheet of the CBI,
which had not conducted an enquiry on its
own. In fact, when all original documents
were in custody of CBI court, there could
not be any reason to believe that the
properties would be dealt with in any other
manner; therefore the attachment officer
had passed an order without any reason to
believe that proceeds of crime were likely
to be transferred or disposed. In the
absence of any sufficient reason, arriving
on
such
a
conclusion
by
merely
reproducing words "reason to believe", it
could not be stated that order has been
passed after considering the entire gamut
of material and therefore the attachment
was held to be not maintainable.

(D) It was further held that the
charge sheet was filed under Section 13 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act on
13/01/2009, while the said Section was
included in the list of scheduled offences
under
the
Prevention
of
Money
Laundering Act on 01/06/2009, therefore
subsequent amendment could not be given
retrospective effect. It was also mentioned
in this judgment that it was settled
principle of law that the provisions of law
cannot be retrospectively applied, as
Article 20 (1) of the Constitution bars the
ex post facto penal laws and no person can
be prosecuted for any alleged offence
which occurred earlier, by applying the
provisions of law which have come in
force after the alleged offence.

A close scrutiny of the above
case would reveal that in this case the
matter involved commission of an offence
under Section 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act which came to be added in
the scheduled offences of Prevention of
Money
Laundering
Act
only
on
01/06/2009, while the offence related to
the
period
between
01/05/1997
to
30/06/2005, therefore the facts of this case
are distinguishable from the facts in case
on hand because in the present case apart
from the offences under Prevention of
Corruption Act, offences under sections
120 B, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of
IPC are also there, under which the
proceedings have been drawn. As far as
1 All. Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
665
the offence under sections 467 IPC is
concerned, the said offence was already
included in Part B of the schedule
appended to PMLA which had come in
force w.e.f. 01/07/2005, and the period
during which offence is being alleged to
have been committed relates to from 2004
to 2006. Therefore, it is apparent that some
period of commission of offence falls
when the scheduled office under Section
467 IPC was already in existence.
Therefore, it would be in the domain of the
trial court to see as to which scheduled
offences might have been committed by
the accused - applicant for which he may
be finally punished, if found proved.

(6) Per contra learned counsel for the
C.B.I.
has
vehemently
opposed
the
argument stating that the provisions of
I.P.C. which have been violated by the
applicant/accused were earlier in Part-B of
the schedule appended to the PMLA, 2002
which
have
subsequently
been,
by
amendment, made part of Part-A of the
schedule appended to the said Act.
Therefore, the argument of the learned
counsel for the applicant that he could not
be tried for committing offence under
PMLA, 2002 would not sustain.

(7) As regards law the argument of
the C.B.I. that section 120B of I.P.C.
relating to criminal conspiracy was earlier
in Part B of the schedule to the PMLA ,
2002 and was subsequently made part of
Part A of the said schedule, hence it could
not be said that the cognizance could not
have been taken by the Trial Court in the
present matter under the aforesaid section,
we scrutinized the position of law and we
find that the said section came into effect
w.e.f. 01.06.2009 and was included in Part
B of the schedule but subsequently the
said section was taken out from there and
was placed in Part A of the said schedule
appended to the PMLA of 2002 by
amendment Act 2 of 2013. This argument
does not make it clear as to how the
provision of Section 120B would be
treated to be applicable for an offence
committed during the period 2004-2006,
as this provision was made punishable
under PMLA of 2002 after 01.06.2009 by
its inclusion in the said Part B of the
schedule appended to the PMLA, 2002.

(8) First of all, we would like to take
up the objection raised by the learned
counsel for the applicant that the offences
which
were
alleged
to
have
been
committed by the applicant/accused were
not made punishable under the PMLA,
2002 because the offences under the I.P.C.
allegedly committed by the applicant were
not part of either schedule A or schedule B
of the aforesaid Act. According to him
these sections were made punishable under
the PMLA of 2002 in the year 2009, w.e.f.
01.06.2009.

(9) We have gone through the entire
provisions.
The
PMLA,
2002
was
promulgated/came
into
force
on
01.07.2005, vide G.S.R. 436(E), dated 1st
July, 2005, published in the Gazette of
India, Extra,, Pt. II, Sec. 3(i), dated 1st
July, 2005. Therefore, the following was
position, as on 1st July, 2005 as regards
inclusion of offences in Part A or Part B of
the schedule appended to the PMLA,
2002. (Only such sections are being taken
into consideration of I.P.C. and P.C. Act,
which are alleged to have been committed
by applicant/accused).

(10) In Part B of the schedule, one of
sections of I.P.C. in question only
i.e.Section 467 I.P.C. which pertained to
forgery of a valuable security will or
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority to make or transfer any valuable
security, or to receive any money etc. was
made punishable under PMLA, 2002.

(11) In view of the above, it is
apparent that the offence under Section
467 was punishable under PMLA of 2002
with effect since 1st July, 2005 while the
allegations against the present accused
relate to the period 2004-05 and 2005-06,
hence the argument of the learned counsel
for the applicant that the cognizance taken
against the accused applicant could not
have been taken for his having committed
offence under Section 467 I.P.C. does not
hold water as the same was already made
punishable under the PMLA of 2002 way
back in 2005. It is settled law that if even
one of the offences under which the charge
is found to have been made out, then it
cannot be denied that cognizance could
have been taken by the Court concerned
for having committed an offence under
PMLA of 2002. If offence under certain
other sections of I.P.C. or P.C. Act are
found not made out in respect of the
present accused during the period in
question due to penal provision not being
available then the said fact may be taken
into consideration by the Trial Court at the
time of trial and take appropriate decision
in that regard.

(12) Thereafter an amendment was
brought in PMLA, 2002 by the Prevention
of Money Laundering (Amendment Act;
2009) (in short no. 21 of 2009, 6th March,
2009) whereby, in Part B Section 120B
(criminal conspiracy) was added and the
same was made punishable under the
PMLA, 2002 under Section 3/4 of PMLA.
Apart from that Section 471 - using as
genuine or forged record, was also placed
in Paragraph 1 under Part B of the said Act
hence this offence also became punishable
under the PMLA, 2002 with effect from
06.03.2009. Further in Paragraph 5 under
Part B the Section 13 of P.C. Act -
criminal misconduct by public servant was
added, and was made punishable under the
PMLA, 2002. Thereafter, by Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2012 (in short 2
of 2013) which came into effect from 3rd
July, 2013 the above offences of I.P.C.
included in Part - B, were made part of
Part - A in Paragraph 1.

(13) As regards other objections that the
appeal against the attachment of the properties
of the applicant/accused was pending before a
Appellate Authority and that the order passed
by the learned Judge of C.B.I. Court had been
stayed by the High Court, Lucknow Bench
hence the cognizance under PMLA ought to
have postponed by the learned Trial Court till
final decision in that case, does not hold good
as there is no legal bar to initiating proceedings
under PMLA under such a situation.

(14) In view of the above, we are of
the view that impugned order does not
suffer
from
any
infirmity
and
the
application is liable to be dismissed and it
is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR666

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 41674 of 2019

Smt. Kumud Dhall ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri
Krshna
Kant
Tiwari