TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n any manner influenced by what is stated are only for the limited purpose of disposing of this quash petition - Petition dismissed. - Criminal Original Petition No.19880 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.13073 & 13076 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2022 - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN For the Petitioner : Mr.Sharath Chandran for Mr.S.Ramesh For the Respondent : Mr.N.Ramesh Special Public Prosecutor [ED] ORDER P.N. PRAKASH, J Seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.62 of 2016 on the file of the Special Court constituted u/s.43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [Principal Sessions Judge], Chennai, the present petition has been filed. 2. At the outset, it may be necessary to state that in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as the PMLA ], there will invariably be two sets of accused viz., one in the predicate offence and other in the prosecution launched by the Enforcement Directorate. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, we are referring to the rank of the accused as set out in the impugned complaint in C.C.No.62 of 2016 that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 and after completing the investigation, filed a final report in C.C.No.6 of 2011 in the Special Court for CBI cases, Coimbatore, for the offences u/s.120-B r/w 420, 467 and 471 IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against G.Srinivasan [A1] and others, in which P.Rajendran [A6] herein is not an accused. Since the CBI case disclosed the commission of a scheduled offence under the PMLA, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case in ECIR No.06/CEZO/PMLA/2011 and after completing the investigation, filed a complaint in C.C.No.62 of 2016 in the Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act cases (Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai) for the offence u/s.3 r/w 4 of the PMLA against 15 persons including G.Srinivasan[A1], R.Manoharan [A2], P.Venkatachalapathy [A4], S.Arivarasu [A5], P.Rajendran [A6] and K.Vignesh [A7]. 3.6. This Court, in Crl.O.P.Nos.2821 and 5638 of 2017, has, by a detailed order dated 21.03.2022, quashed the PMLA prosecution in C.C.No.62 of 2016 against K.Gunaseelan [A8], S.Palanichamy[A9], C.Chellamuthu[A10], K.Kalimuthu [A11], ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to understand that his younger brother, Shri Venkatachalapathy and Shri G.Srinivasan were in some problem; that his brother, Shri Venkatachalapathy, Shri G.Srinivasan and one Shri Selvakumar, who was working with his younger brother, were all arrested by the District Crime Branch, Coimbatore, during July 2009 and about a month later they were released on bail; that during September month the same year, Shri G.Srinivasan told him that for about 5.76 acres land in his name he had appointed one Shri.R.Sivakumar, who was working under him as its power holder and if the land was in the name of the said Sivakumar it would not be safe and hence he (Srinivasan) wished to write the same in his name; that he agreed for the same and gave his consent to get the above said 5.76 acres land transferred in his name as arranged by Shri G.Srinivasan; that the land under Survey No.103, having Patta No.395, totally constituted 17 acres and 28 cents and in that 1/3 portion, i.e., 5 acres and 76 cents was transferred in his name and registered as Document No.1559/2009 of SRO, Chatthirapatti with a specified consideration of Rs.3,64,000/- as arranged by Shri G.Srinivasan, but he neither received nor pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Section 3 of the PMLA, which is punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. 8. Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since P.Rajendran [A6] is not an accused in the CBI case in C.C.No.6 of 2011, his prosecution by the Enforcement Directorate in C.C.No.62 of 2016 is illegal in the light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others [2022 SCC OnLine SC 929] . In support of this contention, he placed strong reliance on the following paragraphs in the said judgment: 253. Tersely put, it is only such property which is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence can be regarded as proceeds of crime. The authorities under the 2002 Act cannot resort to action against any person for money-laundering on an assumption that the property recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless the same is registered with the jurisdictional police or pending inquiry by way of complaint before the competent forum. For, the expression derived or obtained is indicative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jay Madanlal's case [supra] deal with only the cases of persons named as accused in the predicate offence against whom the prosecution in the predicate offence is quashed or he is discharged/acquitted. This benefit cannot be extended to a person, who has not been arrayed as an accused in the predicate offence because the offence under the PMLA is a stand alone offence and is different and distinct from the predicate offence. 11. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that for generating proceeds of crime , a scheduled offence must have been committed, after the commission of the scheduled offence and generation of proceeds of crime, different persons can join the main accused either as abettors or conspirators for committing the offence of money laundering by helping him in laundering the proceeds of crime; such persons may not be involved in the original criminal activity that had resulted in the generation of proceeds of crime , therefore, just because they were not prosecuted for the predicate offence, their prosecution for money laundering cannot be said to be illegal. There appears to be much force in the aforesaid submission, especially, in the light of paragr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
