New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by journalist Rana Ayyub challenging the jurisdiction of a special court in Ghaziabad to take cognizance of a complaint filed against him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Court said that Since there is a “serious factual dispute” as to the places where the offense was committed, the question should be raised before the Ghaziabad court.
The case under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) Act pertains to funds that Ayyub received through crowdfunding for Covid relief. Ayyub had questioned the jurisdiction of the Ghaziabad court, stating that since the money was received in an account maintained in Navi Mumbai, only the special court in Maharashtra could take cognizance of the complaint.
In response, the ED had argued that people from several places, including Uttar Pradesh, had contributed to its crowdfund, and hence the Ghaziabad court would have jurisdiction.
Dismissing Ayyub’s plea, a bench of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and JB Pardiwala discussed Section 3 of the PMLA, which defines the offense of money laundering and lists activities that amount to participation or abetment in crime. There are
The court said that a person can earn the proceeds of crime at one place, have it in his possession at another place, conceal it at a third place and use it at a fourth place. It asserted that under the law, any of these may be areas in which the offense of money laundering has been committed.
The court then noted that while Ayyub took possession of the alleged proceeds of crime in Navi Mumbai, it was only at one place where one of the various processes or activities listed in Section 3 was carried out.
It said the other activity – acquisition of alleged proceeds of crime – has taken place in virtual mode with people from different parts of the country or the world transferring money online.
Therefore, the court said that the question of territorial jurisdiction in the matter requires examination of such questions as where the alleged proceeds of crime were concealed or possessed or obtained or used. It added that since there is a serious factual dispute regarding the places of alleged crime, Ayyub may instead raise such jurisdictional questions before the Special Court at Ghaziabad.
the crowdfund
In 2020-21, Ayyub started online crowdfunding through a platform called Keto for COVID-19 relief, following a Supreme Court ruling. She ran three fundraising campaigns from April 2020 to September 2021.
In September 2021, a FIR lodged in Ghaziabad Police of Uttar Pradesh by Vikas Sankrityayan, who is the founder of an NGO called Hindu IT Cell and a resident of Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. It alleged that Ayyub illegally earned over Rs 2.69 crore through crowdfunding activities. FIR under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 403 (misappropriation of property), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 418 (cheating), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), section 66D (cheating by impersonation) was registered under Using Computer Resource) IT Act, and Black Money Act.
Based on this FIR, the Delhi Zone-II office of the Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint against Ayyub in November 2021 in a Ghaziabad court. This Court passed an order on 29 November 2022 taking cognizance of the complaint and asked him to appear before it.
Last month, Ayyub challenged this order issuing summons on the ground that the Ghaziabad court did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint. When his petition came up on 25 January, the Supreme Court asked the Ghaziabad court to adjourn the proceedings, scheduled for 27 January, to a date after 31 January. again top court reserved Decision on Ayyub’s petition on January 31
Ayyub submitted that under Section 44(1) of the PMLA, an offense under the Act can be tried only by a Special Court in the area in which the offense has been committed. Therefore, he had claimed that only the Special Court in Maharashtra could take cognizance of the complaint against him, as the bank account in which the money was received is located in Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra.
In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, told the court that Ayyub had received the money through an online crowdfunding platform, and therefore, the Ghaziabad court had jurisdiction over several alleged victims who had contributed the money. .
(Editing by Anumeha Saxena)
Read also: SC simplifies passive euthanasia rules – less red tape, time limit for medical board’s decision