TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for release of the aforesaid property. Both the criminal proceedings and proceedings under the Act are different and distinct. Enforcement Directorate had filed a complaint before the designated court and the same was also taken cognizance by the Designated Court proceedings in S.C. No. 342 of 2018 are pending. If at all, the petitioner is having any grievance, they have to file an appeal under Rule 3-a of the aforesaid rules seeking release of the aforesaid properties. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jai Shanker v. Directorate of Enforcement [ 2022 (5) TMI 309 - SUPREME COURT ] has held that Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law which attracts provisions of Article 20(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... continuing attachment of the properties even after closer of C.C. No. 319 of 2010 on which action was initiated under PMLA as illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondent to raise the order of attachment as confirmed by adjudicating authority in O.C. No. 681 of 2017. FACTS of THE CASE:- 3. Petitioner No. 1 is Accused No. 1 in F.I.R. No. 369 of 2002 pending on the file of the Police Station, Patancheru. The said crime was registered on the complaint lodged by Sri. P. Sudheer Reddy. The offences alleged against the petitioner No. 1 herein are under Section 420, 423, 468 and 471, read with 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The investigating officer, on completion of investigation, filed Charge Sheet against the 1st petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Swapna, 2nd petitioner herein during the relevant period. During the course of investigation, petitioner no. 1 could not show any licit income for purchase of such properties, in his name and in the name of his wife. They have no income of their own, however, immovable properties purchased in the name of the 2nd petitioner by the 1st petitioner by using the proceeds of crime derived as a result of criminal activity and with a view to obscure the identity of the properties purchased out of proceeds of crime and thus protected the properties is untainted. Since the said property found after proceeds of crime in terms of Section 2(1)(u) of the Act and has been attached under Section 5 (1) of the Act to make the properties available for conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity under Section 26 of the Act. The 2nd petitioner who is claiming to be the owner of the property and 1st petitioner, her husband failed to explain as to why an appeal under Section 26 of the Act was not filed. However, they are seeking to release of the aforesaid property. 8. According to the 2nd respondent, PMLA being a complete Code or Act and has also contemplated procedure for release of properties and rules also provide the said procedure. Therefore, the petitioner herein instead of approaching the designated court seeking release of the property, filed the present writ petition. 9. The above stated facts would reveal that on the complaint file by Enforcement Directorate, the designated court had taken cognizance of the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated proceedings which was ended in acquittal by virtue of compromise. Therefore, there are no 'proceeds of crime' and the allegation of respondent that the 1st petitioner has purchased the property derived out of the proceeds of crime is false and baseless. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for release of the aforesaid property. 13. As stated above, both the criminal proceedings and proceedings under the Act are different and distinct. Enforcement Directorate had filed a complaint before the designated court and the same was also taken cognizance by the Designated Court proceedings in S.C. No. 342 of 2018 are pending. If at all, the petitioner is having any grievance, they have to file an appeal under Rule 3-a of the aforesa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and the circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, to the underlying principle being the highest standard of proof in criminal cases. In the said judgment, it was finally concluded that in our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in adjudication proceedings as well as the proceedings for prosecution is on merits. If, in case, it is found on merits that there is no contravention of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the persons concerned shall be an abuse of process of court. Whereas in the present case the aforesaid C.C. No. 319 of 2010 was ended in acquittal by way of compromise, but not on merits. 16. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
