M/S Jyotisha Technology Private Limited vs. Directorate Of Enforcement

Held

The Court held that the petition under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the summoning order dated 22.03.2024 is not maintainable as a statutory remedy of revision under Section 442 of the BNSS is available and the summoning order is not an interlocutory order. The Petitioner cannot bypass the statutory remedy by filing a petition under Section 528 BNSS. Regarding the challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court found no exceptional circumstances such as patent lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, manifest perversity, or abuse of process in the summoning order. The grounds raised by the petitioner are matters that can be urged in a revision petition. Similarly, for the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 30.05.2024, the Court held that a complete appellate mechanism is provided under the PMLA, including an appeal to the appellate tribunal and further appeal to the High Court on a question of law. The Court found no lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, manifest perversity, or abuse of process in the Adjudicating Authority's order, nor was the statutory remedy inefficacious. Therefore, the Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to make out a case for interference under Section 528 BNSS or Article 227 of the Constitution.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Jyotisha Technology Private Limited, is challenging several orders related to a money laundering investigation. The investigation stems from FIRs registered against HPZ Token for alleged cheating and criminal conspiracy. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) registered an ECIR based on these FIRs. The ED alleged that the petitioner company was involved in operating and collecting money from investors in the name of HPZ Token, with a total credit/debit of approximately Rs. 115 Crores. The ED further alleged that the petitioner used the platform www.astropay.com, which offers prepaid cards usable on betting and gambling websites, and also facilitated crypto business. The petitioner allegedly misused the PayU platform and routed traffic from betting and adult sites, with their declared GST business not matching their transaction nature. Based on these allegations, the ED issued a provisional attachment order on the petitioner's assets, which was later confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. Subsequently, the ED filed a prosecution complaint, and the Special Judge (PMLA) issued a summoning order against the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the instant petition under Section 528 BNSS read with Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for quashing the summoning order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (PMLA), Dimapur, given the availability of a statutory revisional remedy under Section 442 of the BNSS? (Petitioner's contention: The summoning order is not an interlocutory order and is amenable to inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. Revenue's contention: A statutory remedy of revision under Section 442 BNSS is available and must be exhausted before invoking Section 528 BNSS or Article 227 of the Constitution). 2. Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the summoning order dated 22.03.2024, considering the grounds raised by the petitioner regarding lack of scheduled offence and proceeds of crime connection? (Petitioner's contention: The prosecution complaint lacks essential ingredients of a scheduled offence and no money trail connects the petitioner to proceeds of crime. Revenue's contention: The grounds raised are matters that can be urged in a revision petition, and exceptional circumstances for Article 227 interference are absent). 3. Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, New Delhi, given the availability of a statutory appellate mechanism under the PMLA? (Petitioner's contention: The order is flawed. Revenue's contention: A complete appellate mechanism exists under the PMLA, and the High Court should ordinarily decline to entertain such a petition unless exceptional circumstances like lack of jurisdiction or manifest perversity are present).