BINOD KUMARversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

                          (2011) 4 S.C.R. 646
                                                                         •
A                           BINOD KUMAR
                                    v.
                 STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 2689 of 2011)

                           MARCH 29, 2011
B
       [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]

        Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: ss. 7, 10, 11, 13(2) r. w.
   s.13(1)(e); Penal Code, 1860 - ss.409, 420, 423, 424, 465
C and 120-B - Mu/ti-crore scam - Corruption in the matter of
   grant of iron ore mining lease - Various former minister
   including a former Chief Minister of the State involved -
  Allegation against the appellant also - Investment alleged to
  have been made in the property, shares etc. not only in India,
D but, also abroad - Basic investigation requiring determination
  as to whether the money was acquired by an abuse of the
  official position amounting to any offence under the 1988 Act
  and under /PC, the persons by whom this was done, the
  amount which was so earned and places where it was invested
E - No clear a/legations as regards money laundering - High
   Court held that there was an area of overlap and the same
  cannot be allowed to form a tool in the hands of the accused
  to scuttle the investigation - Looking to the gravity and
  magnitude of the matter, High Court referred the matter to the
F Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and also observed that
  the Central Government should exercise the powers u/
  s.45(1 A) of the PMP Act for transferring investigation from the
  Enforcement Directorate (ED) to the CBI and if such an order
  is not passed by the Central Government, any material found
G by the CBI during investigation, which would lead to an
  inference of money laundering within the PML Act would be
  shared by the CBI with the ED from time to time to enable
  the ED to take such action as may be necessary- On appeal,
  held: It was categorically stated that the CBI was investigating
H                                 646
•     BINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND
                       ORS.
                                                             647


    into the commission of offences under /PC and Prevention A
    of Corruption Act alone and was not investigating any offence
    under the PML Act as the investigation under the PML Act
    was solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction and domain
    of the ED , which was of course subject to the exercise of
    powers by the Central Government u/s.45(1-A) - There is no B
    provision restricting the investigation of offence other than that
    of money laundering by any appropriate investigating agency
    - On consideration of the totality of the facts and
    circumstances, no interference with the orders of the High
    Court called for - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002     c
    - s.45 (1A).

         In the writ petition filed before the High Court, the
    basic allegation was amassing of illicit wealth by various
    former ministers, including a former Chief Minister of the
    State. The allegation was against the appellant also. The       D
    money alleged to have been so earned was of
    unprecedented amounts which were allegedly invested
    in property, shares etc. not only in India but also abroad.
    The basic investigation required determining whether
    money had been acquired by an abuse of the official             E
    position amounting to an offence under the Prevention
    of Corruption Act and under the Indian Penal Code, the
    persons by whom this had been done, the amount which
    had been so earned and places where it had been
    invested. The High Court in the impugned judgment held          F
    that it was neither possible nor desirable to give a
    positive finding about how much of the crime proceeds
    were projected as untainted and therefore, there was an
    area of overlap and same was not allowed to form a tool
    in the hands of the accused to scuttle the investigation.       G
    The High Court referred the matter to the CBI. The High
    Court also observed that the Central Government should
    exercise the powers under Section 45{1A) of the
    Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 {PML Act) for
                                                                    H
    648      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 4 S.C.R.
                                                                 •
A transferring the investigation from the Enforcement
  Directorate to CBI and if such an order is not passed by
  the Central Government, any material found by the CBI
  during investigation, which would lead to an inference of
  money laundering within the PML Act would be shared
B 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 instant appeal was filed
  challenging the orders of the High Court.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
c
         HELD: The matter on the face of it required a
    systematic, scientific and analysed investigation by an
    expert investigating agency, like the Central Bureau of
    Investigation. It was incorporated in the affidavit of the
D   State Government that 32 companies were required to be
    investigated and the money acquired by illegal means
    was invested in Bangkok, Dubai, Jakarta, Sweden and
    Libya. It was also mentioned that there were several
    companies in other countries in which there were huge
E   investments by the accused or with the help of their
    accomplices in foreign countries. The list of countries
    and companies indicated prima facie that the amount
    involved could not be mere a few crores but would be
    nearer a few hundred crores. In the written submission,
F   it was categorically stated that the CBI was investigating
    into the commission of these offences alone and
    presently was not investigating any offence under the
    Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) as
    the investigation under PML Act is solely and exclusively
G   within the jurisdiction and domain of the Enforcement
    Directorate which is subject to the exercise of powers by
    the Central Government under Section 45(1A) of the PML
    Act. On consideration of totality of facts and
    circumstances, no interference with the order of the High
H   Court is called for. [Paras 6, 46 and 47] (650-F-H; 662-C-
    E]
•     BINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND
                       ORS.
                                                               649


         Maganbhai lshwarhai Patel Etc. v. Union of India and          A
    Anr. (1970) 3 SCC 400; S. Jagannath v. Union of India an
    Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 87; Central Bureau of Investigation v.
    State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1996) 9 SCC 735; Enforcement
    Directorate and Anr. v. M. Samba Siva Rao and Ors. (2000)
    5 SCC 431 - referred to.                                           B

                         Case Law Reference:

        (1970) 3 sec 400          referred to            Para 13
        (1997) 2 sec 87           referred to            Para 13
                                                                       c
        (1996) 9 sec 735           referred to           Para 17

        (2000) 5 sec 431           referred to           Para 18

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2689 of 2011.                                                      D

        From the Judgment & Order dated 04.08.2010 of the High
    Court Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (PIL) No. 4700 of 2008.

        K.K. Venugopal, R. Venkat Ramani, Gopal Shankar
    Narayanan, Alok Kumar, Santosh Kumar, Arvind Bansal,               E
    Anwesh Madhukar, Krishan Kumar, Pandey Neeraj Rai,
    Mushtaq Ahmad for the Appellant.

        H.P. Raval, ASG, Ranjana Narayan, P.K. Dey, A.K.
    Sharma, T.A. Khan, 8. Krishna Prasad, B.V. Bairam Das, Anil        F
    Kumar Jha, Santosh Kumar for the Respondents.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                       G
        2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
    dated 04.08.2010 passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.4700 of
    2008 by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.

         3. In the impugned judgment, it is mentioned that the basic   H
    650      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 4 S.C.R.


A   allegation is amassing of illicit wealth by various former
    Ministers, including a former Chief Minister of the State. The
    money alleged to have been so earned is of unprecedented
    amounts. However, there is no clear allegation so far about its
    laundering in the sense mentioned above, but there is an
B   allegation of its investment in property, shares etc. not only in
    India but also abroad.

      4. The basic investigation requires determining whether
  money has been acquired by an abuse of the official position
C amounting to an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act
  and under the Indian Penal Code, the persons by whom this
  has been done, the amount which has been so earned and
  places where it has been invested.

       5. The amount is alleged to run into several hundred
D crores. The investigations done so far allege that the amount
  unearthed so far in one case is about one and a half crore and
  in another case is about six and a half crores, which would
  appear to be merely the tip of the iceberg. The investments
  having been made not only in various States of the country
E outside the State of Jharkhand, but also in other countries
  means that the investigation called for is not only multi-state but
  also multi-national.

       6. The matter on the face of it requires a systematic,
F scientific and analysed investigation by an expert investigating
  agency, like the Central Bureau of Investigation. It is
  incorporated in the affidavit that 32 companies have to be
  investigated and the money acquired by illegal means being
  invested in Bangkok (Thailand), Dubai (UAE), Jakarta
  (Indonesia), Sweden and Libya. It is also mentioned that there
G are several companies in other countries in which there are
  huge investments by the accused or with the help of their
  accomplices in foreign countries. The list of countries and
  companies indicate prima facie that the amount involved could
  not be a mere few crores, but would be nearer a few hundred
H crores.
•     BINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND
            ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
                                                               651


          7. The High Court in the impugned judgment has also A
    mentioned that it is neither possible nor desirable at this stage
    to give a positive finding about how much of the crime proceeds
    have been 'projected as untainted'. Therefore, there is an area
    of overlap and the same cannot be allowed to form a tool in
    the hands of the accused to scuttle the investigation. Looking B
    to the gravity and magnitude of the matter, after hearing learned
    counsel for the parties, the Division Bench of the High Court
    referred the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The
    High Court also observed that the Central Government should
    exercise the powers under section 45(1A) of the Prevention of      c
     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 D
     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.

         8. The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment preferred
    this appeal before this court. Shri K.K. Venugopal, the learned    E
    senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant formulated
    following substantial questions of law concerning the impugned
    judgment and the interpretation of the PML Act.

          "1.   · Whether the PML Act is a self-occupied Code while    F
                  the Act constituting the CBI is limited?

          2.    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?            G

          3.      Whether the High Court was right in brushing aside
                 all the allegations against the PIL and directing
                 investigation by the CBI?"
                                                                       H
    652      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 4 S.C.R.


A        9. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the
    offence of money laundering, under section 4 of the PML Act
    may be investigated only by the Enforcement Directorate and
    tried only by the Special Court under the Act.

B       10. Mr. Venugopal submitted that the PML Act is a self-
    contained Code while the Act constituting the CBI is limited.

       11. Mr. Venugopal further submitted that the PML Act was
  enacted pursuant to the Political Declaration adopted by the
  Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on
C 8th to 10th June, 1998, which called upon member States to
  adopt national money-laundering legislation and programmes.
  (Preamble to the PML Act).

        12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
D Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ('DPSE Act') is
  limited to investigating offences in Delhi and the Union
  Territories.

       13. Mr. Venugopal submitted that the PML Act was
  enacted pursuant to Article 253 of the Constitution and would
E prevail over any inconsistent State enactment. Reliance has
  been placed on Maganbhai lshwarbhai Patel Etc. v. Union of
  India and Another (1970) 3 SCC 400 at para 81 and S.
  Jagannath v. Union of India and Others (1997) 2 SCC 87 at
  para 48. This is however not the case with the DSPE Act.
F
       14. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that
  the PML Act is a special legislation enacted by Parliament and
  not only sets out the 'Offences' (Chapter II) but also the 'manner
  of investigation', attachment and adjudication (Chapter Ill), the
G power to summon, search, seizure and arrest (Chapter V),
  establishment of Tribunals (Chapter VI), Special Courts
  (Chapter VII), Authorities and their powers (Chapter VIII) and
  International arrangements (Chapter IX).

          15. Mr. Venugopal contended that the Act establishes a
H
•      BINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND
             ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
                                                                 653


    specialized agency which consists of Police Officials, Revenue      A
    Officials, Income Tax Officials and various specialized officials
    drawn from various departments. It also empowers the
    Enforcement Directorate under Section 54 to call on assistance
    of officials from:
                                                                        B
          (a)   Customs and Excise Department;

          (b)   Under the NDPS Act;

          (c)   Income Tax'
                                                                        c
          (d)   Stock Exchange;

          (e)   RBI;

          (f)   Police;
                                                                        D
          (g)   Under FEMA;
          (h)   SEBI; or
          (i)   Any Body Corporate established under an Act or
                by the Central Government                               E
         16. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that
    the CBI is comprised only of the police officers and does not
    have the expertise or wherewithal to deal with the offences under
    the PML Act. In addition, as specifically defined in Section 55     F
    (c) of the PML Act, the ED is empowered internationally to trace
    the proceeds of crime, with great freedom accorded to the ED
    when the nexus is established with a contracting state. The CBI
    does not possess such an advantage.

         17. Mr. Venugopal placed reliance on the judgment of this      G
    Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan
    & Others (1996) 9 sec 735 where the identical issue arose
    of the CBI seeking to investigate offences under the FERA,
    which was the sole domain of the ED, the Court held as follows:
                                                                        H
    654       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 4 S.C.R.


A         (i) The officers of the ED are empowered to exercise the
          powers under the FERA as per Sections 3 & 4. and no
          other authority has been empowered except as the Central
          Government may empower from time to time.

          (ii) FERA is a special and a central legislation enacted
B
          later in time than the DSPE Act, and Section 4(2) of the
          Cr.P.C. makes it clear that only in the absence of any
          provision in any other law relating to investigation will a
          member of the police force be authorized to investigate
          the offence.
c
          (iii) The FERA Act is a complete code in itself.

          (iv) As the allegations in the case related to FERA offences
          outside India, and the DSPE under Sections 1 and 2 are
0         authorized only to investigate offences inside India, the
          DSPE member is "not clothed with the authority to
          investigate offences committed outside India".

       18. Learned counsel further submitted that in addition to
  the above, this court in Enforcement Directorate and Another
E v. M. Samba Siva Rao and Others (2000) 5 SCC 431 at para
  5 reiterated that the provisions of the FERA constitute a
  complete code. The provisions of the PML Act are identical,
  and in some ways more wide-ranging.

F        19. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that
    as the allegations in the complaint against the appellant relate
    to so-called national and trans-national offences, the only
    authority which is legally and factually equipped to investigate
    the offences is the Enforcement Directorate.
G        20. Mr. Venugopal further submitted that in the light of
    section 45 (1A) read with sections 43 and 44 of the PML Act,
    the CBI has no authority to investigate the offences which are
    the sole domain of the Enforcement Directorate.

H         21. Mr. Venugopal referred various sections of the PML
•     BINOD KUMAR \I. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND
            ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
                                                               655


    Act to demonstrate that only the Enforcement Directorate can A
    investigate the matter. He also submitted that the conduct of
    investigation by the CBI is therefore contrary to both the intent
    of the Legislature as well as the Executive and further if the plea
    of CBI is put to test it leads to absurdity. It is submitted that in
    order to convict a person of an offence punishable under section B
    4 of the PML Act, the Enforcement Directorate has to first rule
    that the scheduled offence is committed which can be an
    offence under the Indian Penal Code or the Prevention of
    Corruption Act or Narcotics, Drugs, Psychotropic Substances
    Act or any other offence given in any other Act in the schedule   c
    in the PML Act. Once this first part is proved then the.
    Enforcement Directorate has to prove how much money or what
    property was derived from committing the scheduled offence
    and lastly how was it being projected as untainted. The
    appellant prayed that the investigation by the CBI of Vigilance D
    FIR No.09/09 registered at Ranchi be set aside and the
    appellant be released from illegal detention forthwith.

         22. The written submissions have also been filed on behalf
    of the CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement. It is mentioned
    in the written submissions that the Vigilance P.S. Case No.09/    E
    2009 dated 02.07.2009 is instituted inter alia alleging
    commission of offence under sections 409, 420, 423, 424, 465,
    120-B of IPC and Sections 7, 10, 11, 13(2) read with Section
    13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. The said
    complaint was registered on directions of the Special Judge,      F
    Vigilance, Ranchi, who exercised powers under Section 156(3)
    of the Cr.P.C. It named Shri Madhu Koda, former Chief Minister,
    Shri Kamlesh Singh, former Minister, Shri Bhanu Prasad Shah,
    former Minister and Sandhu Tirky, former Minister of Jharkhand.
                                                                      G
         23. During the course of investigation into the said
    complaint by the Vigilance, P.S., State of Jharkhand,
    involvement of the appellant Binod Kumar Sinha had surfaced.
    The FIR also contains clear allegations against the appellant.
    The Central Bureau of Investigation is investigating into the     H
    656      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 4 S.C.R.


A   commission of these offences alone and is not investigating any
    offence under the PML Act, 2002 since the investigation under
    the said 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
8   under section 45 (1-A) of the said Act.

       24. In the written submissions, comprehensive information
  about investigation has been submitted. It is also incorporated
  that the appellant, who was an absconder and evaded arrest,
  is not entitled to any relief in exercise of discretionary
C jurisdiction of this court under Article 136 of the Constitution of
  India. It is also prayed that this appeal which challenges the
  order transferring investigation of Vigilance P.S. No. 09/2009
  to the CBI deserves to be dismissed.

D      25. It is also incorporated that the appellant is involved in
  a multi crore scam - corruption in the matter of grant of iron
  ore mine leases and other acts as more particularly set out. It
  is incorporated in the affidavit that a perusal of various
  provisions of the Act would show that the said Act does not
E empower the Enforcement Directorate to investigate offences
  under IPC or Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or any of the
  scheduled offences. It is the PML Act which authorizes the
  Enforcement Directorate only to investigate offences of money
  laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under
F Section 4 thereof. It also provides attachment, adjudication and
  confiscation of the property involved in money laundering and
  setting up of Special Courts.

          26. Section 2(p) defines Money Laundering as under:

G         "money-laundering" has the meaning assigned to it in
          section 3"

         27. Section 2(ra) defines offence of cross border
    implications and the same is reproduced hereunder:-
H
•      BINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND
             ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
                                                                657


        "offence of cross border implications", means--                 A

        (i) any conduct by a person at a place outside India which
        constitutes an offence at that place and which would have
        constituted an offence specified in Part A, Part B or Part
        C of the Schedule, had it been committed in India and if
                                                                        8
        such person remits the proceeds of such conduct or part
        thereof to India; or

        (ii) any offence specified in Part A, Part B or Part C of the
        Schedule' which has been committed in India and the
        proceeds of crime, or part thereof have been transferred        C
        to a place outside India or any attempt has been made to
        transfer the proceeds of crime, or part thereof.from India
        to a place outside India.

        Explanation.-- Nothing contained in this clause shall           D
        adversely affect any investigation, enquiry, trial or
        proceeding before any authority in respect of the offences
        specified in Part A or Part B of the Schedule to the Act
        before the commencement of the Prevention of Money-
        laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009.                               E

         28. Section 2(u) defines proceeds of crime and the same
    is reproduced hereunder:

        (u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or
        obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result     F
        of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the
        value of any such property;

         29. Section 2(x) defines Schedule and the same is
    reproduced hereunder :
                                                                        G
        "Schedule" means the Schedule to this Act".

         30. Section 2(y) defines Scheduled Offences and the same
    is reproduced hereunder :-
                                                                        H
    658       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011] 4 S.C.R.


A         (2y) "scheduled offence" means--

          (i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or

          (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if
          the total value involved in such offences is thirty lakh rupees
B         or more; or

          (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule.

          31. Sections 3 and 4 are reproduced hereunder:-
c         "3. Offence of money-laundering.- Whosoever directly
          or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or
          knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process
          or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and
          projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence
D         of money-laundering.

          "4. Punishment for money-laundering.- Whoever
          commits the offence of money-laundering shall be
          punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
E         shall not be less than three years but which may extend to
          seven years and shall also be liable to fine which may
          extend to five lakh rupees:

          Provided that where the proceeds of crime involved in
          money-laundering relates to any offence specified under
F         paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, the provisions of
          this section shall have effect as if for the words "which may
          extend to seven years", the words "which may extend to
          ten years" had been substituted."

G      32. Mr. H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General
  appearing for the C.B.I. submitted that a bare perusal of the
  above provisions makes it clear that the offence of money
  laundering is a stand alone offence within the meaning of the
  said Act and its investigation alone is in the exclusive domain
H of the Enforcement Directorate.
•     BINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND
            ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
                                                                   659


         33. He also submitted that the provisions of the said Act         A
    do not contemplate the investigation of any of the Indian Penal
    Code, Prevention of Corruption Act or any of the scheduled
    offences by the Enforcement Directorate.

         34. Mr. Raval contended that having regard to the
                                                                           8
    terminology of section 3, any process or activity connected with
    the proceeds of the crime and projecting it as untainted property
    is the offence of money laundering which is made punishable
    under section 4.

         35. Mr. Raval submitted that section 5 (1) of the said Act        C
    provides that the Director or Authorised Officer has reason to
    believe, to record in writing on the basis of material in his
    possession that any person is in possession of any proceeds
    of crime, that such person has been charged of having
    committed the scheduled offence and such proceeds of crime             D
    are likely to be conceded, transfer or dealt with in any manner
    which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to
    confiscation of such proceeds of crime under Chapter Ill of the
    said Act, then by an order in writing such property may be
    provisionally attached for a period not exceeding 150 days.            E

          36. According to Mr. Raval, a bare reading of the said
    provision makes it clear that the jurisdiction to initiate action of
    attachment has to be founded on a reasonable belief of a
    person being in possession of any proceeds of the crime and
                                                                           F
    not on a concluded investigation of the person being in
    possession of the proceeds of the crime. The distinction is clear
    and it follows from Section 5(1)(b) that the second condition for
    initiation of action of attachment of property involved in money
    laundering is that such person in respect of whom there is
    reason to believe that he is in possession of any proceeds of          G
    the crime, has been charged of having committed a scheduled
    offence.

        37. Mr. Raval contended that if the contentions of the
    appellant were true, then the sections of the said Act would have      H
    660     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 4 S.C.R.
                                                                      •
A been differently worded. He also submitted that the contention
  of the appellant on the basis of provisions of sections 43 to 45
  that any of the scheduled offences can only be investigated
  exclusively by the Enforcement Directorate is not justified and
  tenable at law.
B
        38. Mr. Raval submitted that the embargo from taking
  cognizance by the Special Court of any offence as provided in
  the second proviso of sub section (1) of section 45 is only with
  respect to an offence punishable under section 4. It is only in
  respect of an offence punishable under section 4 of the
C Prevention of Money Laundering Act that cognizance is barred
  to be taken by the Special Court except on a complaint in
  writing as provided in sub clause (1) and (2) thereof.

       39. He also submitted that this provision cannot be
D construed to mean that the Enforcement Directorate has the
  exclusive jurisdiction to investigate any of the scheduled
  offences.

       40. Mr. Raval contended that the contention of the appellant
E that merely because under section 44 of the PML Act, the
  Special Court constituted in the area in which the offence has
  been committed, has been authorized statutorily to try the
  scheduled offence and the offence punishable under section 4
  is equally unsustainable in law since nothing in the said
F provision of section 44 of the said Act envisages the exclusive
  investigation of the scheduled offences by the Enforcement
  Directorate. Mr. Raval submitted that the trial of the scheduled
  offence is distinct and different from investigation under the
  PML Act.

G      41. The above contention of the respondent is buttressed
  having regard to provisions contained in Section 43(2) which
  provides that while trying an offence under the Prevention of
  Money Laundering Act (which means the offence of Money
  Laundering alone) the Special Court shall also try an offence
H other than referred to sub section (1) of section 43 with which
•      BINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND
             ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
                                                              661


    the accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure be charged      A
    at the same trial.

         42. He contended that the scheme of the Act would,
    therefore, not construe the submission of the appellant that in
    case of there being an allegation of offence of money B
    laundering, the scheduled offence also has to be exclusively
    investigated by the Enforcement Directorate. Such a contention
    is not supported by the provisions of the Act since there is no
    provision restricting the investigation of offence other than that
    of money laundering by any appropriate investigating agency. C

          43. Mr. Raval submitted that the money alleged to have
    been so earned is of unprecedented amounts. It is further
    recorded that, however, there is no clear allegation so far about
    its laundering in the sense mentioned in the PML Act. It is further
    observed that there is an allegation of his investment in the D
    property, shares etc. not only in India, but, also abroad. Having
    so observed it is recorded that therefore the basic investigation
    requires determining whether money has been acquired by
    abuse of official position amounting to an offence under the
    Prevention of Corruption Act and under the Indian Penal Code E
    and persons by whom the same has been done the amount of
    money which has been so earned and the places where it has
    been invested.

         44. According to the learned counsel for the respondents,
    the High Court in the impugned order has rec9rded cogent F
    reasons for directing the investigation by the Central Bureau of
    Investigation. Even this court while issuing notice vide order
    dated 01.09.2010 has directed the CBI to continue to
    investigate as directed by the High Court. Under the
    circumstances, the appellant is not entitled to any relief as G
    contended.

        45. Mr. Raval informed the Court that the charge sheet in
    fact has been filed on 12.11.2010 before the Court of
    Competent Jurisdiction alleging inter alia commission of H
    662      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 4 S.C.R.


A   offence under section 120-B IPC, Section 9, Section 13 (2)
    read with section 13( 1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
    1988 against various accused including the appellant Shri
    Binod Kumar Sinha. It is further submitted that the investigation
    is still on and subsequent charge sheets may be filed as and
B   when during investigation sufficient material surfaces on other
    aspects.

         46. In written submission it is categorically stated that the
    Central Bureau of Investigation is investigating into the
    commission of these offences alone and presently is not
C   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.
D
         47. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
    length and perused the written submissions filed by them. On
    consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances, we
    are clearly of the view that no interference is called for.
E       48. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly
    dismissed.

         49. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct
    the parties to bear their own costs.
F
    D.G.                                         Appeal dismissed.