Budihal R. B., J. - (1.) Writ Petition Nos.63381/2016 & 63382/2016 are filed under Article 226 the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking the relief to declare that the respondents-authorities could not have invoked the provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, since Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was not included in para 8 of the schedule and was not a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 as on 15.11.2010.
(2.) Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.63381 & 63382/2016 are that, the first petitioner is the holder of B.E. Degree in Civil Engineering and was initially appointed as Task Force Commander on 20.7.1984 in the Karnataka Infrastructure Rural Infrastructure Development Limited. Subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant Director in KRIDL. Presently, he is working as an Executive Engineer. On 15.11.2000, Superintendent of Police submitted a source report on the basis of the investigation conducted regarding amassing of wealth by the petitioners. Based on the said report, a case was registered in crime No.10/2010 in Dharwad Lokayuktha police station for the offences punishable under Section 13(a)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 16.11.2010 against the 1st petitioner. After search and seizure mahazar reports were submitted by the Lokayuktha police, based on which, a charge sheet was filed on 1.4.2014. Para No.8 of the schedule to the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was amended and section 13 of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was included in para 8 of Schedule-2 of Act, 2002. The amended Act 2012 was gazetted on 3.1.2013. The Rule making authority framed the Rules under the PMLA 2002, only with effect from 15.12.2013 by insertion of Amendment Act, 2013 with regard to taking possession of property attached under Section 5 or frozen under Section 1(a) of section 17 of the order of confiscation. On the basis of the charge sheet filed by the Lokayuktha police, the 2nd respondent initiated investigation in terms of Sections 48 and 49 of the Act, 2002 as the said offences are declared as schedule offence in terms of section 2(1)(y) of Act, 2002. The petitioners further submitted that a notice was issued calling upon them to submit their explanation as to why the properties mentioned at clause (i) and (ii) at para No.5 of the present petitions held by them should not be attached. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed a provisional attachment order No.13/2006 in ECIR/BGZO/03/2011/DD-SD/26 under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of Act, 2002 on 30.03.2016. The 1st respondent lodged a complaint to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 of the Act, 2002. The petitioners were called upon to appear before the Adjudicating Authority for recording their statements. After filing a detailed objections before the Adjudicating Authority, by an order dated 14.9.2016, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the provisional attachment order. Being aggrieved by the order of the said authority, the petitioners contemplating filing of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act, 2002. Para 8 of the schedule to the provisions of Act 2002 was amended and section 13 of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was included in para 8 of schedule 2 to Act No.2/2002. The rule making authority Statute only with effect from 15.12.2013 by insertion of amendment Act 2013 with regard to taking possession of property attached under section 5 or frozen under section 1(a) of section 17 of the order of confiscation and no such procedure is prescribed. Therefore, the question of taking possession by the respondents under the Act 2002 does not arise. Now by impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent under section 8(4) of the Act, 2002, respondent No.2 claimed to have taken possession of the schedule property, has directed the petitioners to vacate the residential premises. The petitioners requesting the respondent to permit them to continue to reside in the schedule premises as it is the only residential house owned by them. The petitioners apprehend that the respondent may take physical possession of the schedule property. Hence, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions challenging the action of the respondents-authorities on the grounds as mentioned at ground Nos.13 to 17 of writ petition Nos.63381-63382/2016.
(3.) Writ Petition Nos.48517-48518/2016 are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to call for records relating to issue of impugned summons bearing No.ECIR/78/BZ/2010/EO-NKS/1053 dated 8.8.2016(vide Annexure G and G1) and the second impugned summons bearing No.ECIR/78/BZ/2010/EO-NKS/1053 dated 22.8.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent directing the petitioners to appear before him for investigation on 14.9.2016 (Annexure J and J1) and after perusal set aside the same.;