TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Kumar Ganesa Perumal agreed to sell his property to Manoharan, cannot, by itself, bring him into the net of Section 3 of the PML Act without anything more. Petition allowed. - Criminal Original Petition No. 21346 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2021 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.N.Prakash And Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Sivagnanam For the Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajan For the Respondent : Ms.G.Hema CGSC ORDER P.N.PRAKASH, J. Seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.13 of 2015 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai (Special Court Formed under Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002), the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed. 2. One Raja, along with his father Manoharan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the premise that the accused involved in Crime No.02 of 2010 had indulged in money laundering. Statement of Kumar Ganesa Perumal was recorded on 03.11.2010 and the statement of Manoharan was recorded on 14.02.2011 by the Enforcement Directorate. However, Manoharan died on 11.12.2011. 5. The Economic Offences Wing, Coimbatore completed the investigation in Crime No. 02 of 2010 and filed a charge sheet in C.C. No. 13 of 2015 in the Special Court for TNPID Act Cases, Coimbatore against Maze Group of Technology (A1), Raja (A2), Aadhi @ Sureshbabu (A3), D.Sugadevan (A4), M.Pugalenthi (A5), Hemalatha (A6), Praveentaj (A7) and Venkatamma (A8) for the offence under Sections 420, 465 and 468 IPC read with Section 5 of the TNPID Act. 6. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otal sale consideration of ₹ 1.25 Crores to Shri R.Kumar Ganesh Perumal of Hosur and that the amount was given to him by his son Raja out of the money deposited by the investors; that on 07.10.2009 he purchased 9.5 cents land situated at Kumaran Nagar, 1st Cross Street, Hosur in his name for ₹ 47 lakhs from the amount given to him by his son Raja out of the money deposited by the investors; that both the properties were sold to Shri Ikram Ahmed Against receipt of ₹ 23 Lakhs. 9. It may be pertinent to state that Manoharan had died on 11.12.2011 and therefore, his statement cannot be treated as a substantive piece of evidence. 10. However, a reading of Para 4.7 shows that, Manoharan had given the advance of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 1.25 crores and paid an advance of ₹ 15 lakhs and thereafter, the police registered a case against Maze Group of Technology on account of which the deal did not go through. On these facts, this Court is not able to infer that Kumar Ganesa Perumal, by agreeing to sell his property to Manoharan, had assisted or abetted, in any manner, the offence prescribed under the PML Act. 13. During investigation, the Enforcement Directorate has collected a sum of ₹ 10,10,729/- out of ₹ 15 lakhs lying in the bank account of Kumar Ganesa Perumal in the form of a Demand Draft No. 017360 dated 13/12/2013 drawn in favour of the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai. Thus, Kumar Ganesa Perumal has been left with ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
