Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2022 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 577 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - proceeds of crime - schedule offence - obtaining/acquiring huge properties and made bank transactions in the Jharkhand and other states by involving in process and activities connected with the proceeds of the crime of the schedule offences - framing of charges - HELD THAT:- The facts of the case of DSP Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran [2005 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT] and the case of REKHA NAMBIAR, BHOJRAJ TELI VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [2015 (11) TMI 1862 - DELHI HIGH COURT] (are entirely different from the facts of this case as the case of DSP Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran is a case where the appeal was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India where the trial court did not consider the defence evidence in its proper perspective but it is settled principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of the accused could not be considered as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , Bengaluru [2020 (1) TMI 1547 - SUPREME COURT]. So far, the case of Rekha Nambiar Vs. CBI (is considered the offences involved in that case were not the offences punishable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 but the offences relating to schedule offence under Penal Provision for the offences punishable under section 109 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, the ratios of these two judgments, in the considered opinion of this court, are of not much help to the petitioner. There is no dispute regarding the settled principle of law regarding the materials to be considered by the trial court while considering the discharge petition as also framing of charge but coming to the facts of this case, this court finds that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of having laundered money to the tune of Rs.7,97,96,888/- and also there is specific allegation of adopting three modus operandi for the same. There is no illegality in the impugned order - Petition dismissed.
|