TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 passed in Crl.M.P.No.418 of 2014 in C.C.No.3 of 2014 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The CBI has initiated Criminal proceedings against the 1st petitioner/A1 on the file of the I Additional Special Judge 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 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 Rao respectively, who have stated that 49 Dhanchakra deposits were made in the name of 49 fictitious persons for total sum of ₹ 20 lakhs. In the year 2007-08 during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 14 lakhs through an instrument No.986550, dated 7.6.2012 from HDFC Bank and invested rest of the amount of ₹ 39 lakhs in the form of FDRs at HDFC. A3 also stated that he is not aware of any Dhanchakra Deposits made with Lakshmi Vilas Limited, Malkajgiri and while he was at USA, he was told by his father that an account has been opened in his name in Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, and a temporary loan was taken from Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Malkajgiri, in his name in order to buy a Flat at Aditya Odyssey in Kondapur village, Sherilingampally, R.R. District. A3 further stated that he was told by his father that pay orders from Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited for an amount of ₹ 17.50 lakhs was paid to M/s. Aditya Construction Company Private Limited, in his name but he is not aware of any collateral security with Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited for sanctioning the said loan. (iii) Basing on the material collected, CBI filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act in C.C.No.16 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. Consequently, the Directorate of Enforcement has filed C.C.No.3/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 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 initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement in C.C.No:3/2014 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Act are one and the same. 6. Be that as it may. Now coming to the facts of the case on hand, the offence was alleged to have been committed during the check period of service of the 1st petitioner and the C.B.I. filed the charge sheet in C.C.No:16/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Delhi High Court that admittedly, prior to amendment Act 2009 none of the provisions which are now invoked by the Enforcement Directorate were on the statute book except Section 467 I.P.C and thus, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted by invoking those provisions. 8. It is also pertinent to note that Article 20 (1) of the Constitution postulates that a person cannot be prosecuted for the offence alleged to have been committed prior to the introduction of the Act and it cannot have the retrospective effect. 9. It is also pertinent to note that the C.B.I already filed the charge sheet against the 1st petitioner, who was the public servant, under the provisions of Section 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The provisions under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 of the Prevention of 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
