TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring is an offence separate and distinct from the Scheduled offence. The complaint alleges that the petitioners have derived proceeds of crime and they have siphoned off the same. The petitioners have been involved in possession, acquisition and use of the proceeds of crime and they have enjoyed the proceeds of crime by it s possession, acquisition and use. The trial Court has ignored that the minimum threshold for all cash transaction or any transaction is given as per Rule 3 is ₹ 8,27,711/-.10 Lakh is concerned, although the ground does not specify as to which set of Rules is being referred by the petitioners, it appears that the petitioner is referring to Rule 3 of Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005, which have been framed for regulating maintenance of records of the nature and value of transactions, the procedure and manner of maintaining and time for furnishing of information and verification of records of the identity of the clients of the banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries . Rule 3 has no relevance for deciding as to whether a person needs to be tried for commission of an offence under section 3 of PM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Satendra Kumar Rai - the revisionist in Revision No. 543 of 2023, was the then Supply Inspector and he was the godown-in-charge of Harahua block during the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03. 2006. He misappropriated food-grains entrusted to him and thereby caused loss of subsidy to the government Exchequer to the tune of ₹ 8,27,711/-. 8,27,711/-. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R. and the charge-sheet, the Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as E.D. ) registered ECIR/06/PMLA/VSZO/2011, which was later renumbered as ECIR/05/LKZO/2017 and after carrying out investigation, it filed a complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money- Laundering Act (PMLA) against six persons, who are the petitioners in the six revisions. 6. The complaint states that Sri. Prakash Mishra, the petitioner in Revision No. 546 of 2023 was the godown in-charge of Harahua Block for the period 01.04.2004 to 16.07.2004. Jai Hind Maurya, the petitioner in Revision No. 536 of 2023 was the godown in-charge of Harahua Block for the period 17.07.2004 to 31.03.2005. Satendra Kumar Rai the petitioner in Revision No. 543 of 2023, was working as Supply Inspector and he was the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclose as to Rule 3 of which set of Rules has been referred to by the petitioners. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the loss allegedly caused by the individual petitioners is less than ₹ 8,27,711/-.30,00,000/- and, therefore, it would not fall within the purview of the term Scheduled Offence . 14. The term Scheduled Offence is defined in Section 2 (y) of the PMLA. Section 2 (y), as it was enacted originally, read as follows: - (y) scheduled offence means (i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is thirty lakh rupees or more; 15. Initially the offence under Section 467 I.P.C. found place in Part B of the Schedule. Section 2 of PMLA was amended by Act 21 of 2009, so as to make it read as follows: - (y) scheduled offence means (i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is thirty lakh rupees or more; or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 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, in contravention of Section 21 of the Act. The Board had made a complaint to the E.D. upon which E.D. registered an ECIR for investigation of offence of money laundering to make inquiries regarding suspected 'Proceed of Crime' amounting to 52,42,525/- generated by the revisionist ₹ 8,27,711/-. and his firm out of the commission of Scheduled Offence. After investigation, E.D. filed a Complaint under Section 45 of the Act with the allegation that the pollution control equipment worth ₹ 8,27,711/-.2,00,000/- was not installed, thus, the revisionist had generated 'Proceed of Crime' to the tune of ₹ 8,27,711/-.2,00,000/- and had retained the same. An application for discharge was rejected by the trial court. In Revision filed against the aforesaid order, it was submitted that the application for discharge moved before the court below was wrongly rejected without considering the provisions of Section 2 (y) (ii) of the PMLA. Allowing the revision, the Co-ordinate Bench held that: - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey-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 activities connected with proceeds of crime, namely (a) concealment; or (b) possession; or (c) acquisition; or (d) use; or (e) projecting as untainted property; or (f) claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever; (ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever. 24. Sri. Kuldeep Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the E.D. has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary versus Union of India , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court held that: - 269. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money-laundering is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the Scheduled offence. The complaint alleges that the petitioners have derived proceeds of crime and they have siphoned off the same. The petitioners have been involved in possession, acquisition and use of the proceeds of crime and they have enjoyed the proceeds of crime by it s possession, acquisition and use. 26. So far as the ground XII in the Memo of revision, that the trial Court has ignored that the minimum threshold for all cash transaction or any transaction is given as per Rule 3 is ₹ 8,27,711/-.10 Lakh is concerned, although the ground does not specify as to which set of Rules is being referred by the petitioners, it appears that the petitioner is referring to Rule 3 of Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005, which have been framed for regulating maintenance of records of the nature and value of transactions, the procedure and manner of maintaining and time for furnishing of information ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
