# Ramji Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement Alld. SubZonal Office - **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 561 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-09-12 - **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1518 of 2023 - **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramji-singh-v-directorate-of-enforcement-alld-subzonal-office-50849 - **Pages:** 22 ## Headnote A. Criminal Law - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 45 - Anticipatory Bail - Restrictions on bail under Section 45 not applicable to Constitutional Courts due to Section 44(2) - Special powers of High Courts under Section 439 Cr.P.C. preserved. B. Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Economic Offences - Allegations of illegal coal diversion - No proceeds of crime recovered from applicants - Applicants cooperated with investigation - Complaints filed after 7-12 years delay - Interim anticipatory bail granted and confirmed. Held: The court held that the restrictions on granting bail under Section 45 of the PMLA do not apply to Constitutional Courts due to the provision in Section 44(2), which preserves the special 562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES powers of High Courts under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The applicants, accused of abetting money laundering and illegal coal diversion, were granted anticipatory bail considering: (i) no recovery of proceeds of crime, (ii) cooperation with investigation, (iii) significant delay in filing complaints (7-12 years), (iv) the applicant Ramji Singh's age (72 years) and medical conditions, and (v) no violation of interim bail conditions. The court distinguished the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings from bail applications, emphasizing that rejection of quashing applications does not preclude bail. The interim anticipatory bail orders were confirmed, and the applications were allowed without requiring fresh bail bonds. (Paras 46-52, 64-74) Case Law Discussed: ## Text _Characters 0–39,906 of 68,479. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39906 for what follows._ 9 All. Ramjit Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Alld. Sub-Zonal Office 561 Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the respondents herein were personally liable for any offence. The Bank is a body corporate. Vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. Statutes indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability." 17. Now, it emerges that reasons essentially be recorded in the summoning order, if the matter is arising out of complaint case. Apparently from perusal of the impugned summoning order, it transpires that the reasons have not been recorded and, therefore, the same vitiates in the eyes of law. 18. In view of the aforesaid submissions and discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned summoning order dated 13.9.2018, passed by the trial court is against the settled proposition of law. 19. Consequently, impugned summoning order dated 13.9.2018 passed by the trial court is hereby set aside. 20. The matter is remitted back to the trial court concerned to pass fresh order within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, in accordance with law. 21. The office shall communicate this order to the trial court forthwith. 22. With the aforesaid observations, instant application is hereby allowed. ---------- (2023) 9 ILRA 561 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 12.09.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1518 of 2023 (Under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) And other cases Ramji Singh ...Applicant Versus Directorate of Enforcement Alld. SubZonal Office ...Respondent Counsel for the Applicant: Purnendu Chakravarty, Anuj Taandon, Rishabh Chauhan Counsel for the Respondent: Rohit Tripathi A. Criminal Law - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 45 - Anticipatory Bail - Restrictions on bail under Section 45 not applicable to Constitutional Courts due to Section 44(2) - Special powers of High Courts under Section 439 Cr.P.C. preserved. B. Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Economic Offences - Allegations of illegal coal diversion - No proceeds of crime recovered from applicants - Applicants cooperated with investigation - Complaints filed after 7-12 years delay - Interim anticipatory bail granted and confirmed. Held: The court held that the restrictions on granting bail under Section 45 of the PMLA do not apply to Constitutional Courts due to the provision in Section 44(2), which preserves the special 562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES powers of High Courts under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The applicants, accused of abetting money laundering and illegal coal diversion, were granted anticipatory bail considering: (i) no recovery of proceeds of crime, (ii) cooperation with investigation, (iii) significant delay in filing complaints (7-12 years), (iv) the applicant Ramji Singh's age (72 years) and medical conditions, and (v) no violation of interim bail conditions. The court distinguished the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings from bail applications, emphasizing that rejection of quashing applications does not preclude bail. The interim anticipatory bail orders were confirmed, and the applications were allowed without requiring fresh bail bonds. (Paras 46-52, 64-74) Case Law Discussed: 1. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs U.O.I., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 2. Directorate of Enforcement Vs M. Gopal Reddy, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1862 3. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 4. St. of Bihar Vs Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751 5. Rohit Tandon Vs Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46 6. P. Chidambaram Vs CBI, (2020) 13 SCC 337 7. P. Chidambaram Vs Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791 8. Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 9. Sushila Aggarwal Vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 10. Kamlesh Vs St. of Raj., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1822 11. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) 1. Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Sinha Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Hemant Gupta, Sri Aishwarya Sinha and Sri Raghav Tiberwal Advocates appearing on behalf of the applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 1611 of 2023, 1617 of 2023, 1636 of 2023, 1638 of 2023 and 1639 of 2023, Sri. Purnendu Chakravarty Advocate for the applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 1518 of 2023, 1523 of 2023 and 1602 of 2023, and Sri Rohit Tripathi Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent - Directorate of Enforcement and perused the records. 2. All the aforesaid applications seek anticipatory bail for different accused persons in different cases, but on similar set of allegations arising out of a joint surprise check carried out on 25.03.2011 by some officers of Railways and Northern Coalfields Ltd. (NCL) at the factory premises of (1) M/s Swastik Cement Products Ltd., (2) M/s Fertico Marketing and Investments Pvt. Ltd., (3) M/s Jai Durga Industries, (4) M/s Sri Ram Fuels Pvt. Ltd. and (5) M/s Drolia Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. It was found that the aforesaid companies used to receive coal from Northern Coal Fields Ltd. (NCL) for manufacture of Special Smokeless Fuel (SSF) and instead of processing the coal, the companies sold it in black market at a high premium causing wrongful loss to the government and wrongful gain to the accused persons. 3. On 13.04.2011, the C.B.I/ACB Lucknow filed 5 F.I.Rs. under Sections 120-B, 420 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for causing wrongful gain to the companies by diverting the coal received from NCL to open market without processing to SSF. RC 4(A) 2011 was filed 9 All. Ramjit Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Alld. Sub-Zonal Office 563 against M/s Swastik Products Ltd., RC 5 (A) 2011 against M/s Fertico Marketing & Investment Pvt. Ltd., RC 6(A) 2011 against M/s Jai Durga Industries, RC 7 (A) 2011 against M/s Sri Ram Fuels and RC 8 (A) against Ms Drolia Code Industries Pvt. Ltd. Unknown officials of District Industries Centre (DIC) and unknown officials of NCL have also been made accused in all the F.I.Rs. The C.B.I. filed five different charge-sheets dated 31.05.2012 in respect of the aforesaid 5 F.I.Rs. 4. The particulars of the cases in respect of which the aforesaid 8 applications have been filed, are being mentioned below: - Sl.n o. ABAI L No. FIR No. ECI R No. Com plain t No. Da te of Co mp lai nt Ses sio n Ca se No . 1 1518 05 02 02/2 019 03. 06. 20 19 51 2/2 02 3 2 1523 06 & 08 01 & 03 Mer ged in 01 08/2 022 24. 06. 20 23 12 4/2 02 3 3 1602 04 04 06/2 018 12. 07. 20 18 49 2/2 02 3 4 1611 07 05 02/2 016 Ap ril 20 16 51 3/2 02 3 5 1617 06 & 08 01 & 03 Mer ged in 01 08/2 022 24. 06. 20 23 12 4/2 02 3 6 1636 04 04 06/2 018 12. 07. 20 18 49 2/2 02 3 7 1638 05 02 02/2 019 03. 06. 20 19 51 2/2 02 3 8 1639 05 02 02/2 019 03. 06. 20 19 51 2/2 02 3 5. ECIR/03/VSI/LZO/2012 was merged with ECIR/01/VSI/LZO/2012 on 29.03.2016. 6. The charge-sheets filed by CBI state that up to the year 2000, coal was a controlled commodity and industrial units used to get coal upon recommendation and sponsoring by the Directorate of Industries. In the Year 2000, the Government of India notified the Colliery Decontrol Order and thereafter no recommendation of the Directorate of Industries was required for allotment of coal to industrial units and the sponsoring of coal from Directorate of Industries was stopped in the year 2003. The Government announced the New Coal Distribution Policy (NCDP) in October 2007 under which coal was to be supplied to non-core Small Scale Industrial consumers through Fuel Supply Agreements (FSA) directly from Coal India Ltd. / subsidiary coal companies. 564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 7. Clause 4.4 of FSA provides that the purchaser would not sell/divert or transfer the coal for any other purpose whatsoever and it would be treated as a material breach of the agreement. In the event of the purchaser engaging or planning to engage in any resale of coal, the seller (NCL/CIL) would terminate the agreement forthwith without any liability or damages whatsoever payable to the purchaser. 8. Upon joint inspection of the factories, it was found that the factories were non-functional and they had sold away the coal in breach of the condition contained in clause 4.4 of the FSA, without processing the same into SSF. 9. Regarding Ramji Singh - the applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 1518 of 2023, 1523 of 2023 and 1602 of 2023, it is stated in the complaints filed by E.D. that he and Yogendra Nath Pandey - another officer of the DIC, had misused their official positions by certifying falls/fabricated reports prepared by the companies regarding proper utilization of coal received from NCL and about functioning of SSF manufacturing units without proper physical inspection. Their act facilitated continuous supply of coal from NCL, which resulted in generation of wrongful gain. The applicant Ramji Singh and Yogendra Nath Pandey were indirectly involved in the activity of abetment with regard to generation of proceeds of crime and thereby they committed the offence of money-laundering. 10. The complaint further states that three summons were issued to the applicant Ramji Singh and in reply to the last summon, he sought exemption from appearance due to his medical conditions. 11. In the affidavits filed in support of the anticipatory bail applications of the applicant Ramji Singh, it has been stated that no coal was supplied at a notified price on the basis of status report submitted by the applicant, because the coal was supplied under FSA and as per clause 4.4 of the agreement, it was the duty of NCL to inspect/call for any documents from the purchaser and physically verify the end use of coal and satisfy itself about its correctness. The applicant Ramji Singh has not received any money as a result of any criminal activity. 12. It has been stated that the applicant Ramji Singh is a 72 years old person, who is infirm and sick and he is suffering from numerous old age related ailments. Several documents indicating continuing treatment of the applicant from Medanta Hospital, Gurugram, have been annexed which indicate that the applicant is suffering from Hypertension, Diabetes, Lacunar Stroke, Depression and some cardiac problems and he has been a patient of T.B. 13. Regarding Ravindra Aggarwal, the applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 1611 of 2023 and 1617 of 2013, it is alleged that he is the owner of M/s S.B.C. Minerals Pvt. Ltd. which had purchased undersized coal from M/s Sri Ram Fuels Pvt. Ltd., M/s Jai Durga Industries and M/s Drolia Coke Industries during year 2010-11 and the transaction was proved to be false. Ravindra Aggarwal has been charged for involvement in criminal conspiracy of illegal diversion of coal by showing fake purchase of undersized coal. The complaint records the statement of Ravindra Aggarwal that the coal so purchased from Shri Ram Fuels Pvt. Ltd., M/s Jai Durga Industries and M/s 9 All. Ramjit Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Alld. Sub-Zonal Office 565 Drolia Coke Industries was further sold to M/s Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. and other purchasers. Rupees ten lacs were paid to the seller through bank transfer and the balance payment was made in cash. 14. Jai Narayan Agarwal, the applicant in Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1639 of 2023, is the Proprietor of Ananda Coal Movers, M/s Shivam Coal Movers and M/s Trishul Industries, which had purchased coal from M/s Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd., without the same having been processed into SSF. The complaint records the statement of the applicant that the coal so purchased from M/s Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. was further sold to other purchasers. The entire amount towards purchase of coal was paid through cheques and bank transfers, except an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was paid in cash. 15. Subhash Chandra Tulsian, the applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 1636 of 2023 and 1638 of 2023, is the owner of M/s Tulsian Coal Syndicate and M/s Purnagiri Holding Pvt. Ltd. The allegation against him is that during year 2010-11 M/s Swastik Cement Products and M/s Fertico Marketing and Investments Pvt. Ltd. had purchased the coal from NCL under FSA for processing and converting it into special smokeless fuel (SSF) but they wrongfully sold the coal in open market without processing the same to M/s Tulsian Coal Syndicate and M/s Purnagiri Holding Pvt. Ltd. It is alleged that some sale transactions appeared to be fake. Subhash Chandra Tulsian has been charged as being involved in criminal conspiracy of illegal diversion of coal by showing fake purchase of SSF. The complaints record the statement of the applicant that the coal so purchased from M/s Swastik Cement Products and M/s Fertico Marketing and Investments Pvt. Ltd. was further sold to other purchasers. The entire consideration for the coal was paid through cheques only. 16. The learned counsel for the applicants in ABAIL Nos. 1611, 1617, 1636, 1638 and 1639 of 2023, namely Ravindra Aggarwal, Jai Narayan Agarwal and Subhash Chandra Tulsian, has submitted that the applicants have not committed any offence by purchasing the coal from Sri Ram Fuels Pvt. Ltd., M/s Jai Durga Industries, M/s Drolia Coke Industries, M/s Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Swastik Cement Products. At the most, the aforesaid companies are guilty of breach of agreement with NCL, which prohibited sale of coal in open market and under which the companies were obliged to process the coal, convert it into SSF and thereafter sell it in the open market. The applicants or their concerns were not parties to the contract between the NCL and the aforesaid three companies. No proceeds of crime have been recovered from any of the aforesaid applicants and none of their properties has been attached. 17. Considering the aforesaid facts, all the applicants have been granted anticipatory bail in the scheduled offences. 18. Besides the aforesaid cases arising out of allegations regarding illegal sale of coal leveled in furtherance of the joint inspection carried out on 25.03.2011, none of the applicants is involved in any other case. 19. The applicant Ramji Singh has been granted bail in Complaint Case No. 02 of 2016 under Section 3/4 of PMLA by 566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES means of an order dated 31.10.2017 passed by this Court sitting at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32061 of 2017. 20. Keeping in view the facts that the applicant Ramji Singh has retired from the position of General Manager of the DIC and presently he is aged about 72 years; that he is suffering from various ailments; that there is no allegation of recovery of any proceeds of crime from the applicant, he was granted interim order anticipatory bail on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:- (i). That the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (ii). That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii). That the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv). That the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. 21. The other applicants have also been granted interim anticipatory bail on similar terms. 22. The respondent - E.D. has filed counter affidavits in ABAIL Nos. 1518 of 2023, 1523 of 2023, 1602 of 2023, 1617 of 2023 & 1636 of 2023. It has not been disputed in the counter affidavits that the applicants have cooperated with the investigation and they were not arrested during investigation, but it has been stated that these facts are hardly relevant for deciding the application. The counter affidavits state that the proceeds of crime need not be relatable or traceable to any particular accused so long as the same is identifiable and can be related with the case. 23 . The counter affidavits refers to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary versus Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, Directorate of Enforcement versus M. Gopal Reddy and another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1862, Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy versus Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 439, State of Bihar and another versus Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751 and Rohit Tandon versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46. 24. In Directorate of Enforcement versus M. Gopal Reddy and another and Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary versus Directorate of Enforcement (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the rigors of Section 45 of PMLA apply to the applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 25. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that: - "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and 9 All. Ramjit Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Alld. Sub-Zonal Office 567 involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country." 26. In State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751, the students of one College were successful in occupying first ten places in the merit list of Intermediate Examination conducted by Bihar Intermediate Education Council. An FIR was registered under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. Investigation revealed fraudulent practices prevailing in Bihar Intermediate Examination involving students and management of the College resulting in the arrest of the respondent. The High Court had granted bail to the respondent. In appeal the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: - "8. A bare reading of the order impugned discloses that the High Court has not given any reasoning while granting bail. In a mechanical way, the High Court granted bail more on the fact that the accused is already in custody for a long time. When the seriousness of the offence is such the mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the courts. We are not able to appreciate such a casual approach while granting bail in a case which has the effect of undermining the trust of people in the integrity of the education system in the State of Bihar." (Emphasis supplied) 27. In Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46, during a raid conducted jointly by the Crime Branch and the Income Tax Department at the office premises of the appellant sometime after demonetization, currency of Rs 13.62 crores was recovered, including new currency in the denomination of Rs 2,000/- amounting to Rs 2.62 crores. In addition, the appellant had surrendered Rs 128 crores during the raids conducted by the Income Tax Department in his office and residential premises. The bail application of the appellant was rejected by the High Court. The appellant preferred second bail application before the High Court of Delhi and he filed an application for his interim release on the assertion that his mother was seriously ill and she required immediate medical attention. The Second Bail Application was dismissed as withdrawn on the request of the applicant, yet the High Court granted interim bail to the appellant for 3 weeks, taking into account the period of incarceration of the petitioner, submission of the charge-sheet in the main case and the illness of the mother of the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual background, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: - "21. The consistent view taken by this Court is that economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. Further, when attempt is made to project the proceeds of crime as untainted money and also that the allegations may not ultimately be established, but having been made, the burden of proof that the monies were not the proceeds of crime and were not, therefore, tainted shifts on the accused persons under Section 24 of the 2002 Act." 28. The counter affidavit also makes a reference to the following passage from a 568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES judgment dated 12.03.2001 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Pandey versus Munni Singh @ Mata Bux Singh, S.L.P. No. 4059 of 2000: - "The High Court on being moved, has considered the application for bail and without bearing in mind the relevant materials on record as well as the gravity of offence released the accusedrespondent on bail, since the accused, who had been ascribed similar role, had been granted bail earlier." 29. The counter affidavit has been verified by an Assistant Director of ED, who has disclosed his qualification to be graduation, and all the averments made in the counter affidavit regarding various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been verified on the basis of personal knowledge of the deponent. The reference made to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Pandey (Supra) indicates an unfounded and unwarranted misapprehension in the mind of the deponent that this court will decide the bail application without bearing in mind the relevant materials on record or the gravity of the offence. 30. Section 45 of PMLA provides the following conditions for grant of bail to an accused person: - "45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm or is accused either on his own or along with other coaccused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees, may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs: Provided further that ... * * * (2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in sub-section (1) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. * * *" (Emphasis supplied) 31. It is relevant to note that Section 44 of the PMLA contains the following provision: - "44. Offences triable by Special Courts.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- (a) an offence punishable under Section 4 and any scheduled offence 9 All. Ramjit Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Alld. Sub-Zonal Office 569 connected to the offence under that section shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed: Provided that the Special Court, trying a scheduled offence before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to try such scheduled offence; or (b) a Special Court may, upon a complaint made by an authority authorised in this behalf under this Act take cognizance of offence under Section 3, without the accused being committed to it for trial. Provided that after conclusion of investigation, if no offence of moneylaundering is made out requiring filing of such complaint, the said authority shall submit a closure report before the Special Court; or (c) if 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 under subclause (b), it shall, on an application by the authority authorised to file a complaint under this Act, commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court and the Special Court shall, on receipt of such case proceed to deal with it from the stage at which it is committed. (d) a Special Court while trying the scheduled offence or the offence of money-laundering shall hold trial in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), as it applies to a trial before a Court of Session. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that,- (i) the jurisdiction of the Special Court while dealing with the offence under this Act, during investigation, enquiry or trial under this Act, shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offence, and the trial of both sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as joint trial; (ii) the complaint shall be deemed to include any subsequent complaint in respect of further investigation that may be conducted to bring any further evidence, oral or documentary, against any accused person involved in respect of the offence, for which complaint has already been filed, whether named in the original complaint or not.] (2) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and the High Court may exercise such powers including the power under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of that section as if the reference to "Magistrate" in that section includes also a reference to a "Special Court" designated under Section 43." (Emphasis supplied) 32. Surprisingly, Section 45 of the PMLA, which contains certain restrictions on the Courts' power to grant bail, does not contain any provision saving the special powers to grant bail conferred upon the High Courts by Section 439 Cr.P.C., whereas Section 44 of the PMLA, which confers jurisdiction for trial of offences 570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES under the Act upon Special Courts and which does not contain any provision which may affect the powers of any Court regarding grant of bail, provides that nothing contained in Section 44 shall affect the High Court's special powers regarding bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 33. It appears that the provision contained in Section 44 (2) of PMLA saving special powers of the High Courts regarding grant of bail was meant to be incorporated in Section 45 of the Act, but it has erroneously been placed just above Section 45. This conclusion is supported by a study of similar provisions contained in other Statutes which are being referred to in the following paragraphs. 34. Section 12 (1) and 12 (2) of the Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016 contains a provision similar to Section 45 (1) and 45 (2) of PMLA, but a provision similar to Section 44(2) of PMLA is also contained Section 12(3) of the Anti-Hijacking Act. The aforesaid section reads thus: - "12. Provision as to bail.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond, unless,- (a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (b) where Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Designated Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail as specified in sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force, on granting bail. (3) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)." (Emphasis Supplied) 35. The High Courts' special powers for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been saved even when the punishment for the offence of hijacking provided in Section 4 is upto death. 36. Similarly, the offences under the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982 carry a punishment of imprisonment for life and Section 6A of the Act provides that: - "6-A. Provision as to bail.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 9 All. Ramjit Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Alld. Sub-Zonal Office 571 (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. (3) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)." 37. Section 3 of the Maritime AntiPiracy Act, 2022 provides that the offence of piracy will carry a maximum punishment of imprisonment upto life and in case the person committing piracy cause death of any person or attempts to cause death, he may be punished with death. Section 12 of the aforesaid Act provides that: - "12. Provisions as to bail.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (a) the Public Prosecutor has been given a reasonable opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the special powers of the High Court regarding grant of bail under section 439 of the Code." 38. Offences under Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Maritime Navigation and Fixed Platforms on Continental Shelf Act, 2002 carry punishment upto death and Section 8 of the aforesaid Act provides that: - "8. Provision as to bail.-(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. (3) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under Section 439 of the Code." 39. Offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 carry a punishment of imprisonment upto life and Section 36 AC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 provides that: - 572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES "36-AC. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable in certain cases.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- (a) every offence, relating to adulterated or spurious drug and punishable under clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 13, sub-section (3) of Section 22, clauses (a) and (c) of Section 27, Section 28, Section 28-A, Section 28-B and sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 30 and other offences relating to adulterated drugs or spurious drugs, shall be cognizable. (b) no person accused, of an offence punishable under clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 13, subsection (3) of Section 22, clauses (a) and (c) of Section 27, Section 28, Section 28-A, Section 28-B and sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 30 and other offences relating to adulterated drugs or spurious drugs, shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm, may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs. (2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. (3) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and the High Court may exercise such powers including the power under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of that section as if the reference to "Magistrate" in that section includes also a reference to a "Special Court" designated under Section 36-AB." 40. The aforesaid Acts deal with heinous offences like hijacking of aero planes, unlawful acts against safety of civil aviation, maritime piracy, unlawful acts against safety of maritime navigation and fixed platforms on continental shelf, and offences relating to manufacture and sale of adulterated or spurious drugs, which would affect a very large number of population, and the offences carry punishment upto death. All the Acts contain restrictions of Courts' power to grant bail to an accused person, which are similar to the restriction provided in Section 45 (1) and (2) of PMLA. All the acts provide that the aforesaid restrictions can be waved by the Special Courts in case of a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm, like the provision contained in the proviso appended to Section 45 (1) of PMLA. 41. Although the High Courts' discretion in the matter of grant of bail has been saved in respect of offences as serious 9 All. Ramjit Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Alld. Sub-Zonal Office 573 as hijacking of aero planes and piracy on ships or manufacture or sale of adulterated or spurious drugs, by inserting a subsection in the particular Section which contains restrictions against grant of bail, in PMLA, the clause saving the special powers of High Courts has been placed at a wrong place in Section 44, as noted above. 42. A similar error appears to have crept in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Section 36-A of the Act provides for jurisdiction of Special Courts for trial of offences under the Act and it provides that: - "36-A. Offences triable by Special Courts.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- (a) all offences under this Act which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than three years shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed or where there are more Special Courts than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Government; (b) where a person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under this Act is forwarded to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such Magistrate may authorise the detention of such person in such custody as he thinks fit for a period not exceeding fifteen days in the whole where such Magistrate is a Judicial Magistrate and seven days in the whole where such Magistrate is an Executive Magistrate: Provided that in cases which are triable by the Special Court where such Magistrate considers- (i) when such person is forwarded to him as aforesaid; or (ii) upon or at any time before the expiry of the period of detention authorised by him; that the detention of such person is unnecessary, he shall order such person to be forwarded to the Special Court having jurisdiction; (c) the Special Court may exercise, in relation to the person forwarded to it under clause (b), the same power which a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try a case may exercise under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in relation to an accused person in such case who has been forwarded to him under that section; (d) a Special Court may, upon perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act or upon complaint made by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in his behalf, take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial. (2) When trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court may also try an offence other than an offence under this Act with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be charged at the same trial. (3) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the 574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES special powers of the High Court regarding bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the High Court may exercise such powers including the power under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of that section as if the reference to "Magistrate" in that section included also a reference to a "Special Court" constituted under Section 36. * * *" 43. Section 37 of NDPS Act contains restrictions against grant of bail, which are similar to the restrictions provided in PMLA and other Acts referred to above and it provides that: - "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;