9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Cr.P.C.) filed by the petitioners. All the revisions involve common questions and, therefore, the same are being decided by a common judgment. 2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Bhatt, the learned for the revisionist and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent - Directorate of Enforcement. 3. It has been stated in the revisions that the same arise out of a case registered under an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Number 10503 (M/B) of 2009. Initially the case was investigated by S.I.T. of U. P. Police, but later it was transferred to C.B.I. under directions of this Court. The F.I.R. number RC0062010A0026/2010 lodged in Police Station CBI, ACB, Lucknow under Sections 120 B/420/467/468/471 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act states that during the period 2004 to 2006, several persons, in conspiracy with each other, misappropriated and diverted the food grains meant for persons below poverty line, mid-day meal and Antyoday scheme in Varanasi district. After investigation, the C.B.I. submitted a charge-sheet. 4. The charge-sheet states that Satendra Kumar Rai - the revisionist in Revision No. 543 of 2023, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. 10. During investigation, three fixed deposit accounts of the accused Satendra Kumar Rai came to light and the cumulative amount of Rs. 8,27,711/-. 8,27,711/- deposited in those three accounts was attached by the E.D. 11. All the petitioners had filed separate applications for discharge before the trial court, which have been rejected by means of similarly worded separate orders dated 25.04.2023. 12. The orders rejecting the discharge applications have been assailed by filing separate revisions inter alia on the grounds that the petitioners are innocent; that the complaint has been filed belatedly, the predicate offence alleged against the petitioners was not a scheduled offence at the time of its alleged commission and that the E.D. could not find any money trail or any suspicious transactions. Ground XII taken in the memo of Revisions claims that as per Rule 3, the minimum threshold for all cash transactions is Rs. 8,27,711/-. 10 lakhs whereas the subsidy loss allegedly caused by the petitioners is less than the aforesaid threshold amount, but the Ground does not disclose as to Rule 3 of which set of Rules has been referred to by the petitioners. 13. The learned Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... everal other offences also but only those offences have been mentioned in this judgment, which have been allegedly committed by the petitioner and which are relevant for the present case. 20. From a bare reading of Section 2 (y) of PMLA as it exists today, it is clear that the condition of the total value involved in the offence applied to the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule alone, and not to any other Scheduled offence. Part B of the Schedule mentions offence under Section 132 of the Customs Act only and the petitioner has not been charged with commission of the aforesaid offence. 21. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammad Iqbal Vs. Respondent: State of U.P. and Ors., Criminal Revision No. 1004 of 2019 decided On: 28.02.2020. In that case, a complaint case under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 was filed by U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow with the allegation that there was no proper arrangement for controlling air pollution and the factory was operational from 12.09.1984 to 17.07.2007 without obtaining consent of the Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1981 was not a Scheduled Offence under PMLA during the period 12.09.1984 to 17.07.2007, which it was committed, yet the accused was charged with commission of offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. The co-ordinate Bench rightly did not interfere with the proceedings on the Ground that on the date of commission of the predicate offence, it was not a Scheduled Offence. 23. Before proceeding any further, it would be appropriate to have a look at Section 3 of PMLA, which reads as follows: - "3. Offence of money-laundering.-Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money laundering. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,- (i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived or obtained from such criminal activity even after it has been notified as scheduled offence, may be liable to be prosecuted for offence of money-laundering under the 2002 Act - for continuing to possess or conceal the proceeds of crime (fully or in part) or retaining possession thereof or uses it in trenches until fully exhausted. The offence of money-laundering is not dependent on or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence or if we may say so the predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime. These ingredients are intrinsic in the original provision (Section 3, as amended until 2013 and were in force till 31.7.2019); and the same has been merely explained and clarified by way of Explanation vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. Thus understood, inclusion of Clause (ii) in Explanation inserted in 2019 is of no consequence as it does not alter or enlarge the scope of Section 3 at all." 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the offence of money laundering is an offence separate and distinct from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
