P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.—The petitioner, while working as Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, was prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation in said case against the petitioner was that he was in possession of assets which is disproportionate to his known source of income, to the tune of Rs. 12,80,108/-. The petitioner was found guilty of both the said offences and convicted. After the conviction, a case was registered against the petitioner suspecting commission of offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (''the Act'' for short). Ext.P2 is the Information Report in the said case. Pursuant to Ext.P2, the petitioner was summoned by the fourth respondent as part of the investigation. According to the petitioner, the investigation initiated against him pursuant to Ext.P2 report is unsustainable in law, in as much as the Act was not in force when the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to him, the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 report is therefore violative of the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 20(1) of the Constitution. It is also the case of the petitioner that Ext.P2 report does not disclose that the petitioner has involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of the crime nor does it disclose that the petitioner has projected or claimed it as an untainted property. According to the petitioner, to attract the offence under Section 3 of the Act, both the aforesaid ingredients have to be established. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P1 representation requesting the fourth respondent to drop the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 report. Since there was no response to Ext.P1 representation, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained a direction to the fourth respondent to consider Ext.P1 representation. The said direction was issued by this Court in WP(C).No.20529 of 2014. Pursuant to the said direction, the fourth respondent has now passed Ext.P4 order rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P1 representation. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 decision of the fourth respondent. Hence this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner solely based on the registration of the case under Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the consequent conviction of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the allegation in the said case is that he has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income, for the period from 1.1.1997 to 31.10.2002. It was contended that since the Act was brought into force only with effect from 4.1.2013, the registration and investigation of the case under the Act is hit by Article 20(1) of the Constitution. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P2 report does not disclose the facts necessary to constitute a case under Section 3 of the Act.
4. The Act was introduced with a view to prevent money laundering and to provide for confiscation of the property derived from, or involved in, money laundering and for matters connected therewith. Section 2(p) of the Act provides that money laundering will have the meaning assigned to it in Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 dealing with the offence of money laundering reads thus:
"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 including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering."
Section 2(u) of the Act which defines ''proceeds of crime'' reads thus:
"2(u). ''Proceeds of crime'' means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property."
It is evident from the aforesaid provisions in the Act that though the commission of a scheduled offence is a fundamental precondition for initiating proceedings under the Act, the offence of money laundering is independent of the scheduled offences. The scheme of the Act indicates that it deals only with laundering of money acquired by committing the scheduled offences. In other words, the Act deals only with the process or activity with the proceeds of the crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use. Article 20(1) of the Constitution prohibits conviction except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. In other words, there cannot be any prosecution under the Act for laundering of money acquired by committing the scheduled offences prior to the introduction of the Act. The time of commission of the scheduled offences is therefore not relevant in the context of the prosecution under the Act. What is relevant in the context of the prosecution is the time of commission of the act of money laundering. There is, therefore, no substance in the argument that the investigation commenced as per Ext.P2 is hit by Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
5. As indicated above, the investigation was commenced against the petitioner on a suspicion that he has committed the offence under Section 3 of the Act. The investigation is in progress. As such, merely for the reason that the information report filed for initiation of investigation does not disclose all the ingredients of the offence under Section 3 of the Act, the investigation cannot be interfered with.
6. The writ petition, in the circumstances, is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
