TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attempting to indulge or knowingly assist or knowingly be a party to the alleged activities and projecting it as untainted property. The prosecution under section 3 of the PML Act cannot be equated with the prosecution under section 13 of the PC Act. Both are distinct and separate offences. A reading of section 3 of PML Act would clearly indicate that even without there being any conviction of the accused in a predicate offence and even if the offender under section 3 of the PML Act is not a party to the predicate offence, still the prosecution could be launched against the offender, if he is found involved in any process or activity connected with the 'proceeds of crime'. Since the allegations made in the complaint and the mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PC Act ), on the allegation that during his tenure as Deputy Revenue Officer in Kalaburagi City Corporation, between 02.01.1976 and 22.09.2009, he amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income to an extent of ₹ 42,25,859/-. During the pendency of the trial in Special Case No.18/2015, the Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore Zonal Officer, registered a case against accused No.1 in Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) No.12/BZ/2009 dated 26.10.2009 and took up investigation under PML Act. On 08.06.2016, he filed a complaint before the Special Court for trial of the cases under the provisions of the PML Act, alleging commission of the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the view that the occurrence of a scheduled offence is a substratal condition for giving rise to 'proceeds of crime' and commission of 'scheduled offence' is a pre-condition for proceeding under the PML Act and with this reasoning, allowed the application in part and discharged accused Nos.2 and 3 from the alleged offences under section 3 of the PML Act. I have heard Sri.M.B.Nargund, learned ASG appearing for revision petitioner and Sri.Chidananda Urs, learned counsel for respondents. 4(i) Learned ASG, at the outset submitted that the decision relied on by learned Trial Judge in RAJIV CHANANA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (referred supra) was set aside by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rge under section 3 of the PML Act. Considered the submissions and perused the records. 6. Insofar as the averments made in the complaint lodged by the Directorate of Enforcement is concerned, it is seen that direct allegations are leveled against the accused attracting the ingredients of the offence under section 3 of the PML Act. Direct allegations are made in the complaint to the effect that Shri.Shankar Kollur s/o. late Bhimshya Kollur (A1), Smt.Parvati Kollur w/o. Shri Shankar Kollur (A2) and Shri Avinash Kollur s/o. Shri.Shankar Kollur (A3) were involved in money laundering and made a total pecuniary gain of ₹ 36,24,077/- by laundering in the property obtained through commission of the offence under section 13(1)(e) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 020, this Court has held that that even without the existence of predicate offence and without there being any conviction of the offenders for the predicate offence, their prosecution for the offence of money-laundering can be sustained as long as they continue to be in possession and enjoyment of the proceeds of crime . Since the law on this point is elaborately considered in the above decision as well as the various other decisions rendered by this Court referred therein, the reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Judge to discharge the accused cannot be sustained. 8. Section 227 of Cr.P.C. lays down the circumstances in which a Court of Sessions could discharge the accused before it. This Court in Smt.J.UMADEVI Another vs. STATE O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.' 22. Therefore, examination of the accused is permissible under Section 239, undoubtedly, for ascertainment about the truth or otherwise of the allegations made, which is not contemplated in Section 227. Therefore, it implies that the magistrate cannot merely on the basis of reference to the charge sheet, reject the request of the accused to discharge only because prima facie case is made out. He is required not only to examine the records submitted along with the final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., but also to examine the accused for ascertainment as to whether a case is made out for framing charge. All the contentions of the accused need to be taken into consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
