TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Srinivasan in real estate by purchasing lands in the name of A4, A6 and A7. Thereafter, A4, A6 and A7 sold the lands through their power agent Ayyappan to Gunaseelan (A8) who in turn sold the lands to A9 to A15. It is most pertinent to state here that the FIR for the 'scheduled offence' was registered by the CBI only on 06.10.2010 and these sale transactions had taken place much before that. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the purchasers of the land could be expected to anticipate that the land that they are intending to purchase must have been purchased by their vendors with monies generated by a criminal activity. The prosecution of A8 to A15 for the offence under Section 3 r/w 4 of PMLA in C.C. No.62 of 2016 is an abuse of process of law - Petition allowed. - Crl. O.P.Nos.2821 and 5638 of 2017 And Crl.M.P.Nos.1992 and 1993, 4226 and 4227 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 21-3-2022 - Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.Prakash And Honourable Mr. Justice A.A.Nakkiran For the Petitioners : Mr.J.V.Niranjan in both the Crl.O.Ps For the Respondent : Mr.N.Ramesh, Spl. Public Prosecutor (ED) in both the Crl.O.Ps COMMON ORDER P.N.PRAKASH, J. Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... District from one Shri R.Ayyappan, a resident of No.57-B, Vinayaka Apartment, Padmavathi Nagar Main Road, Virugambakkam, Chennai - 92, who was the power of attorney of (1)P.Rajendran, a resident of Door No.85, Metrathi Village, Kaspa, Udumalaipet Taluk, Tirupur District (Annexure VIII), (2) P.Venkatachalapathy, a resident of Door No.4/756, Ayyalu Meenakshi Nagar, Darapuram Road, Udumalaipet Taluk, Tirupur District (Annexure VII) and (3) K.Vignesh, a resident of Door No.13-A, Mariappa Layout, Thillai Nagar, Udumalaipet, Tirupur District and got the same registered at the Chathirapatti SRO, Dindigul District as detailed hereunder: Sl. No. Details of Landed Properties Doc.No. Purchase Value 1. 5 Acres 76 Cents at Pudukottai Village, Ottanchatthiram Taluk 187/2010 ₹ 3,64,000/- 2. 5 Acres 15 3/4 Cents at Pudukottai Village, Ottanchatthiram Taluk 188/2010 ₹ 3,27,000/- 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thiram Tk, Dindigul Dist. V.Nattuthurai, S/o.N.Veluchamy, Vadipatti, Kaspa, Vadipatti Village, Ottanchatthiram Tk, Dindigul Dist. 2.4 While this being so, GTFL was merged with State Bank of India and during reconciliation of the accounts, it was found that GTFL had given the loan of ₹ 15 crores to Manoharan (A2) based on fraudulent documents. Therefore, on a complaint given by the State Bank of India, the CBI registered a case in Crime No.RC-9(E)2010 on 07.10.2010. Since the final report that was registered by the CBI disclosed the commission of a schedule offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (for short 'PMLA'), the Enforcement Directorate registered a case in ECIR No.6/CEZO/PMLA/2011 under PMLA. The CBI completed the investigation in Crime No.RC-9(E)2010 and filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.6 of 2011 in the Special Court for CBI Cases, Coimbatore for the offence under Sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 471 IPC and Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act against Srinivasan (A1), Manoharan (A2), Selvakumar (A3), Venkatachalapathy (A4), Arivarasu (A5), Rajendran (A6) and Vignesh (A7). The said case is pending trial in the Special Court for CBI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. It is the specific case of the Enforcement Directorate that A8 to A15 came into the picture only after the 166 acres of land were purchased by Venkatachalapathy (A4), Rajendran (A6) and Vignesh (A7). It is not the case of the Enforcement Directorate that A8 to A15 were involved along with A1 and A2 in the criminal activity viz., obtaining the loan from GTFL with fake documents. 9. For a prosecution under Section 3 r/w 4 of PMLA, the following three ingredients are essential viz., (i) A criminal activity should have been committed; (ii) Some money should have been generated via the criminal activity; (iii) The money so generated (proceeds of crime) should have been projected as untainted one. 10. In this case, there is no shred of material to show that A8 to A15 had committed any criminal activity at all. A8 had purchased lands for his business from A4, A6 and A7 through their power agent Ayyappan and thereafter, he sold those lands to A9 to A15 for a valuable consideration. In paragraphs 13.7 and 13.8 of the impugned complaint, the allegations against A8 to A15 are as under: 13.7 It is humbly submitted that Shri K.Gunaseelan having purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s involved as aforesaid, in a process or activity connected with proceeds of crime as defined, which would include concealing, possessing, acquiring or using such property, would be guilty of the offence, provided such persons also project or claim such property as untainted property. Section 3, therefore, contains all the aforesaid ingredients, and before somebody can be adjudged as guilty under the said provision, the said person must not only be involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, but must also project or claim it as being untainted property. (emphasis supplied) 12. In this case, 166 acres of land is not the subject matter of crime. The subject matter of the criminal activity is obtaining the loan of ₹ 15 crores from GTFL by submitting forged documents. Therefore, the proceeds of the crime is ₹ 15 crores. A fraction of the sum of ₹ 15 crores viz., ₹ 1.07 crores was invested by Srinivasan in real estate by purchasing lands in the name of A4, A6 and A7. Thereafter, A4, A6 and A7 sold the lands through their power agent Ayyappan to Gunaseelan (A8) who in turn sold the lands to A9 to A15. It is most pertinent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
