Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2014 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 1069 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney laundering - Non disclosure of loan taken - Maintainability of the supplementary complaint - Held that:- The petitioners were found to have been involved themselves in that process or activity of the proceeds of crime in the year 2008 when they are said to have advanced the money to Surya Sonal Singh, who has been found to have been involved in the activity connected with the proceeds of crime from the years 2008 to 2012, when he invested the proceeds of crime in the Real Estate at Gurgaon, but all of them have been found projecting it as untainted money much after incorporation of Section 13 as scheduled offence. Moreover, one may find there had been inter connected transaction of the proceeds of crime starting from the year 2008 to 2012. If the prosecution has found Surya Sonal Singh to have involved himself in the activity or process of the proceeds of crime, any transaction entered into in between petitioner nos. 1, 2 and Surya Sonal Singh would be presumed to be interconnected transaction in terms of the provisions as contained in Section 23 of PML Act.Under the circumstances, the submissions, which had been made on behalf of the petitioners that the transaction entered into by the petitioners in the year 2008, cannot be subject matter of the prosecution under Section 3 of the PML Act, is not worth acceptable. Enforcement Directorate seems to be that when the claim was laid by petitioner no. 1 that he had taken loan from M/s Bhawesh Metal and M/s Ketan Metal, the documents submitted by those firms never disclosed any loan being given to petitioner no. 1. However, subsequently, some documents were placed showing advancement of the loan to petitioner no. 1, but those documents in view of the case of the Enforcement Directorate become quite suspicious. In that event, any finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority would not be binding and, thereby, order passed by the Adjudication Authority, would have no adverse effect upon the case of the Enforcement Directorate whereby the petitioners are being prosecuted for commission of the offence under Section 3 of the PML Act. Going further into the matter, it be stated that the question has been raised over the maintainability of the supplementary complaint on the premise that the provisions as contained in Section 44 (1)(b) and 45 of the PML Act, refers to 'a complaint'. Even if such reference is there of 'a complaint', it never prevents of filing of supplementary complaint as the reference of a complaint has been made in those provisions in the context that whenever a complaint filed by an authority authorized, court may take cognizance over it. We have already noted the circumstances, under which a supplementary complaint has been lodged. In such situation, it can be said that it has been lodged in the same manner in which supplementary charge sheet is submitted in a police case. If such a restricted meaning as has been sought to be advanced then the result would be that even if after filing of a complaint culpability of any other person is found during investigation, he will not be prosecuted. This can never be the intention of the legislature. Thus, we do not find any illegality with the order taking cognizance and, hence, this application stands dismissed.
|