Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 484 - AT - Money LaunderingOffence under PMLA - Provisional Attachment Order - Order of acquittal - Held that:- From the Impugned Order that the reply/documents/materials and evidence filed by the appellant have not been considered nor the statement made by Shri Shankar Kollur, Smt. Parvati Shankar Kollur, Shri AvinashKollur and Shri Rakesh Kollur which would show the salary income / rental income /agriculture income /tailoring income/ business income/hiring of vehicles /income from civil work/acquisition of movable and immovable property and details of sources for acquisition /loans from bank and others/ salary and retirement benefits of Smt. IravvaMareppa mother of Parvati Kollur. Provisional Attachment Order has not discussed the source of funds available with the accused. It was merely assumed that the accused/appellant had not any savings despite of submitting the material and documents and also from his spouse, son Rakesh and Avinash. Adjudicating Authority ought to have complied with all the principles of duly conducting a judicial proceeding where rights of the parties are to be based on the cogent findings based on the evidence led in the case, as every proceedings under the PMLA 2002 is a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 50 of PMLA Act 2002. No appeal has been filed against the acquittal order and quashing of charge sheet ( as informed by the parties). The complaint was decided on merit. The respondent was aware about the said trial. No steps were taken to have the consolidated-trial under schedule offence and prosecution complaint. The prosecution has examined large number of witnesses and documents were marked. The statement of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded. The case of the accused is of total denial. Once the acquittal order is passed against the appellant holding that he was not involved in the Prevention of Corruption Act and he has purchased/ acquired the properties in legal resources, the question of money laundering does not arise. Allegations are same and ECIR was registered on the basis of charge sheet. There were only two options left after acquittal, either to file the appeal against the judgement and the trial under PMLA ought to have been conducted along with the trial with the case registered under schedule offence. The respondent apparently did not make efforts in this regard. Thus, the present appeal is allowed
|