TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2015 dated 28.07.2015 filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta, Gulbarga under Section 13 (1)(e) 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the Hon ble Special District and Sessions Court, Gulbarga against Shri Shankar Kollur, Retd. Revenue Officer, City Corporation, Gulbarga for possessing disproportionate assets to the extent of ₹ 42,25,859/- which was in excess of 55.53% of the said Officer s known sources of income. (ii) As offences under Sections 13 (1)(e) 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are Schedule Offences under Section 2(1)(y) of PMLA, 2002 and prima facie a case of Money Laundering appeared to have been made out, an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) No. 12/BGZO/2009 dated 26-10-2009 was registered by the Directorate of Enforcement for necessary investigation under theprovisions of PMLA, 2002, (iii) During the course of investigation, Summoned Shri Shankar Kollur, Smt. Parvati Kollur W/o Shri Shankar Kollur, Shri AvinashKollur S/o Shri Shankar Kollur, Shri Rakesh Kollur S/o Shri Shankar Kollur, Smt. Chandrakala W/o Shri AvinashKollur and Smt. Apeksha W/o Shri Rakesh Kollur, recorded their statements under Section 50(2) (3) of PMLA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The following pleas were taken by the appellants before the Adjudicating Authority, the details are as below:- i. a) The learned counsel did not consider rental income/agriculture income/business income from tailoring of the spouse Smt.Parvati Kollur declared in the returns of income filed to the IT department. b) The learned Authority did not consider the income from profession and business income of son Sri Rakesh Kollur and AvinashKollur which has been disclosed and returned in the return of income filed to Income Tax department. c) The order of provisional attachment passed by learned Authority is against the law of land pronounced by Hon ble Apex court in N number of disproportionate of asset cases. d) The learned Authority drawn the conclusions about sources of income and brought forward savings hurriedly without corroboration of substantial documents and materials filed by me. ii. a) Purchase of plot measuring 50x70 at Sy No. 76 M.B. Nagar, Gubbi Colony, Gulbarga is allotted by City Corporation Gulbarga on 24.05.1980 on payment of initial amount of ₹ 11840/-. Further, I have paid balance amount of ₹ 45,177/- during April, 1997 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,686/- during 1997-98 and ₹ 71,425/- during 1998-99 and ₹ 2,00,000/- Housing Loan from State Bank of Hyderabad which sourced the construction cost of ₹ 3,68,987/-. The learned Authority has considered salary drawn of ₹ 66,686/- during 1997-98 and ₹ 71,425/- during 1998-99 but did not consider the brought forward savings of about ₹ 2,77,124/- out of salary income. iv. I had borrowed loan of ₹ 1,25,000/- from City Corporation Gulbargaduring 1999-2000.To substantiate the fact of borrowing, I am herewith enclosing copy of sanction letter and also it can be perused from receipt and payment account that department has deducted ₹ 12000/- from the salary every year towards loan till during the period 2000-01 to 2008-09. v. Tailoring / agriculture /rental income of ₹ 5,66,490/- contributed by my spouse towards house construction jointly with me. In this regard, I would like to bring to honors kind notice thefollowing facts: 1) My spouse has been the only child to her parents Mr. Mareppa and Mrs. Iravva and grand daughter of Mr. Bailappa who was also corporation employee. Mr. Mareppa was the only son to Mr. Bailappa. 2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1996-97 8,450.00 1997-98 16,150.00 1998-99 20,550.00 1999-00 24,980.00 2000-01 10,820.00 2001-02 13,630.00 2002-03 12,470.00 2003-04 13,240.00 2004-05 33,298.00 2005-06 56,239.00 2006-07 53,692.00 2007-08 54,260.00 2008-09 35,500.00 TOTAL 3,85,429.00 In her income tax returns, she has returned income from rents every year, copies have been submitted to learned Authority at Bangalore. 7) My spouse has purchased two agriculture lands on 20.08.1992 totally measuring 5 acres 20 guntas at Sy No.125 village Savalagi District Gulbarga. The above said lands have been cultivated and g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our of the appellants on 24.8.2017 when the notice under section 8(4) of the Act was issued. 6. I have gone through the reply filed by the respondent and the respondent has taken the same stand which was taken before the Adjudicating Authority who had discussed the same in the Impugned Order. It appears that the OC No. 577/2016 was confirmed merely on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR no. 20/2009 registered by Karnataka Lokayukta and also the charge sheet no. 17/2015 dated 28.07.2015 filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta under section 13(1) (e ) 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 7. By order passed on 27.04.2017 the Special Judge (Lokayukta) and Principal Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi has struck down and set-aside charge sheet no.18 of 2015 filed by The Karnataka State, Lokayukta Police Station, Kalaburagi . Accused Shankar S/o BhimshyaKollur is found not guilty of the offence under section 13(1) (e ) R/W section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, exercising the power under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted for the offence under section 13(1) (e ) R/W section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence that accused possessing the ancestral properties through which he has received agricultural income. The income received from the agriculture and other sources have been clearly reflected in his assets and liability statements and also Income Tax Returns submitted to the Government. 63. In the instant case, every single amount received by the accused has been proved on record though the testimony of witnesses and it is also supported by contemporaneous documents and intimations to the Government. It is not the case of the prosecution that the receipts so projected were bogus or were part of a calculated device. The fact that these amounts were actually received from the sources so named were satisfactorily proved by the accused. Furthermore, these amounts and assets are well reflected in the assets and liability statements filed by the accused. 64. Insofar as other assets and income as disclosed by the prosecution are not seriously disputed by the accused. After analysing each and every items as stated supra, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the probative value of each items, it appears that preponderance of probability of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TOTAL Rs.45,56,117/- Grand Total i.e.Rs.72,35,197/- (-) ₹ 45,56,117/- Rs.26,79,080/- ANNEXURE-B Expenditure incurred by the accused during check period as per the charge sheet and items of expenditure ordered tobe deleted as determined by the Court. Expenditure incurred by the accused during the check period as per the charge sheet Rs.46,00,099/- The items of expenditure ordered to be deleted 1) Electricity bills paid by the tenants residing in the houses situated at Ashok Nagar and Vidya Nagar Rs.1,45,736/- 2) Difference amount of digging of Borewell and installation of submersible pump etc. Rs.22,500/- 3) Difference amount of Family Expenditure Rs.6,83,081/- TOTAL Rs.8,51,317/- Grand Total i.e. ₹ 46,00,099/- (-) ₹ 8,51,317/- Rs.37,48,782/- ANNEXU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argued that once the appellant was acquitted from the schedule offence and no appeal was filed, the attached properties are liable to be released. 11. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that one of the reason for quashing the PMLA complaint is that the amendment to the provisions of section 8(3)(b) of PMLA Act with effect from 15.02.2013 are as under:- Prior to 15.02.2013 The following clause substituted by the Prevention of Money laundering (Amendment) Act,2002 (2 of 2013), which came into effect from 15 February, 2013. (b) become final after the guilt of the person is proved in the trial court and order of such trial court becomes final. After 15.02.2013 (b) becomes final after an order of confiscation is passed under sub section (5) or sub-section (7) of section 8 or section 58B or sub-section (2A) of section60 by the Adjudicating Authority. 12. It is argued that the provisions of section 8(3)(b) of PMLA Act, 2002 are existed and prevailing as on the date of FIR/ date of search were of the year 2009. The amended provisions of PMLA Act, 2002 are only applicable to cases which are registered/ initiated/ booked on or after 15.02.2013. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 18. The 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. 19. Even in the impugned order, the plea raised by the appellants were neither discussed nor decided, merely vague approach was taken by the officer who is not even judicial member. It is informed that the officer is even not a member(law).He has simply passed the order in mechanical manner. 20. The 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. 21. Sri Shankar Kollurhas already been acquitted in the offence on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
