Binod Kumar v. State of Jharkhand & Ors

FACTS

• The BINOD KUMAR (appellant) appealed the judgment, arguing that money laundering under section 4 of the PML Act can only be investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and tried by a Special Court.

• The impugned judgment alleges the amassing of illicit wealth by former Ministers, including a former Chief Minister of the State, with an estimated amount of several hundred crores.

• The money is alleged to have been invested in property and shares not only in India but also abroad.

• Investigations have so far revealed that the amount unearthed in one case is about one and a half crore and in another case is about six and a half crores.

• The investments have been made in various states outside Jharkhand and other countries, necessitating a multi-state and multi-national investigation.

• The matter requires a systematic, scientific, and analyzed investigation by an expert agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

• The affidavit includes 32 companies to be investigated, and the money acquired illegally is being invested in Bangkok, Dubai, Jakarta, Sweden, and Libya.

• The High Court has stated that it is not possible or desirable to give a positive finding on the amount of crime proceeds.

• The appellant appealed the judgment, arguing that money laundering under section 4 of the PML Act can only be investigated by the Enforcement Directorate and tried by a Special Court.

ISSUES

1. Whether money has been acquired by an abuse of the official position amounting to an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and under the Indian Penal Code,

2. The persons by whom this has been done, the amount which has been so earned and places where it has been invested.

3. Whether the PML Act is a self-occupied Code while the Act constituting the CBI is limited?

4. Whether, in light of Section 45(1A) read with Sections 43 and 44 of the PML Act, the CBI has any authority to investigate offences which are the sole domain of the Enforcement Directorate?

5. Whether the High Court was right in brushing aside all the allegations against the PIL and directing investigation by the CBI?”

6. Whether the High Court was right in directing investigation by CBI—Held, investigation under 2002 Act exclusively within jurisdiction and domain of Enforcement Directorate?

JUDGEMENT

• The court ruled that no interference is needed and dismissed the appeal, stating it was devoid of merit.

• The court also directed the parties to bear their own costs, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances.

OBSERVATION

• The High Court observed that the Central Government should exercise the powers under Section 45(1A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘the PML Act’) for transferring investigation from the Enforcement Directorate to the CBI. If such an order is not passed by the Central Government, any material found by the CBI during investigation, which leads to an inference of money laundering within the PML Act will be shared by the CBI with the Enforcement Directorate from time to time, to enable the Enforcement Directorate to take such action, as may be necessary.

• The Central Bureau of Investigation is investigating into the commission of these offences alone and presently is not investigating any offence under the PML Act as the investigation under the PML Act is solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction and domain of the Enforcement Directorate, which is of course subject to the exercise of powers by the Central Government under Section 45 (1-A) of the said Act.

You might be interested in the analysis of the PMLA provisions discussed in PMLA Binod Kumar vs State Jharkhand|Parvathi Kollur v State Directorate ED|Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, which provides context on the ED's exclusive investigative powers affirmed in this judgment.