9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for CBI Cases, Hyderabad for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in C.C.No.16 of 2010 alleging that the 1st petitioner/A1 has acquired assets worth of Rs. 45,94,764.83 ps., disproportionate to his source of income, during the "check period" of his service in ECIL as a Public Servant, and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself and for his family members. The FDRs worth Rs. 20 lakhs were taken in the names of 49 unknown individuals and the 1st petitioner/A1 was shown as nominee in all such F.D.Rs. The complainant recorded the statements of the Branch Managers of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Shivpuri, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, viz.,J. Janaki Raman, G.S. Radhakrishna and Y. Venkat R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs was given to A1, who in turn deposited the same in Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Malkajgiri. He further stated that there is no relation between Rs. 20 lakhs given to A1 and 49 Dhanchakra deposits with Lakshmi Vilas Bank. (ii) The complainant examined the 3rd petitioner-A3, who is the son of A1, on 10.7.2012, who stated that he has three accounts with HDFC Bank Pvt., Ltd., one account with SBI and PPF account with SBI, and two other accounts with Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited. He purchased Flat No.303 at M/s. Aditya Constructions Company Limited Serilingampally for consideration of Rs. 33 lakhs. A3 further stated that he invested an amount of Rs. 11.47 lakhs for registration. The said amount was paid to the builder. He sold the same to An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Sessions Judge alleging that the 1st petitioner acquired disproportionate assets. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge took cognizance of the case against the petitioners/A1 to A3 for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.418 of 2014 in C.C.No.3 of 2014 seeking to discharge them for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge dismissed the above Crl.M.P. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners-A1 to A3 filed this revision. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was incorporated in the Prevention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Act, 1988 in C.C.No.16 of 2010 alleging that he has acquired assets worth Rs. 45,94,764.83 ps., disproportionate to his source of income, during the "check period" of his service in ECIL as a Public Servant. The material gathered from the above pleadings, discloses that the alleged bank transactions took place in the year 2008 i.e., prior to 2009. Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act mandates that the act of money laundering should be intentional and it has to be traced to the point of time when the actual transaction took place. The allegations that have been made by the C.B.I in the chargesheet in C.C.No:16/2010 on the file of the 1st Additional Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Hyderabad and in the Money laundering case in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quashed, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.No:17525/2014 wherein this Court held that the alleged incidents occurred prior to June, 2009, and prior to 2009, the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code were not included in the schedule appended to the Act 2002 and the filing of the complaint and taking cognizance thereof is unsustainable. He further relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in Crl.M.C.No:5581/2014 and also on Tech Mahindra's case, wherein it was observed as under: "It is settled principle of law that no person can be prosecuted on the allegation which occurred earlier by applying the provision of law which has come into force after the alleged incident. In ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Corruption Act, 1988 were inserted in paragraph 8 of Schedule A, under the amendment Act of Money Laundering 2009 with effect from 1.6.2009 whereas the Directorate of Enforcement has laid the chargesheet in C.C.No:3/2014 against the petitioners-1 to 3 for the offences alleged to have been committed prior to 2009. This charge sheet has been filed only after the introduction of the amendment Act 2009, which came into effect from 1.6.2009. Prior to Amendment Act, 2009, none of the provisions which are now invoked by the Enforcement Directorate were on the statue book except Section 467 IPC. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted by invoking the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Money Laundering Act. 10. In support of his conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
