TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not right in setting aside the discharge order despite the fact that the accused No. 1 had already been acquitted in relation to the scheduled offence and the present appellants were not accused of any scheduled offence. The impugned judgment and order is set aside and the order dated 04.01.2019 as passed by the Trial Court, allowing discharge application of the appellants, is restored - Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru (Karnataka) for the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2002 ). The appellants herein are wife and son of the accused No. 1 against whom the allegations had been that during his tenure as Deputy Revenue Officer, he amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking discharge in the case pertaining to the Act of 2002. Before the said application was considered and decided, the accused No. 1 expired on 08.05.2018. Thereafter, the Trial Court, by its judgment and order dated 04.01.2019, allowed the application and discharged the appellants from the offences pertaining to the Act of 2002 while observing that occur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f India Ors. decided on 27.07.2022 where, the consequence of failure of prosecution for the scheduled offence has been clearly provided in the following terms: 187. .(d) The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity connected with such propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The result of the discussion aforesaid is that the view as taken by the Trial Court in this matter had been a justified view of the matter and the High Court was not right in setting aside the discharge order despite the fact that the accused No. 1 had already been acquitted in relation to the scheduled offence and the present appellants were not accused of any scheduled offence. In view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
