9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1262 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - drug trafficking - possession of Heroin - international syndicate of laundering the money generated out of drug trafficking in Australia and other countries - involvement of the Respondents in criminal activities that constitute offences under Part A and Part C of the schedule to PMLA - HELD THAT - The Respondents No. 1 and 2 before this Court have been acquitted of charges under Section 420/468/471 of the IPC and Section 29 of the NDPS Act vide Order dated 3rd August 2015. It was observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court Amritsar that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the concerned Respondents. The Petitioner filed a supplementary complaint on the basis of findings and recovery made during further investigation. Thereafter taking into account all the material before it the learned Additional Sessions Judge discharged the Respondents of Section 3/4 of the PMLA and Section 20/22/27A of the NDPS Act. The present Petitioner is aggrieved by the said Order of discharge and has impugned the same by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The legislation of PMLA had been enacted with the objective to prevent and control money laundering and to confiscate and seize the property obtained from the laundered money. The PMLA is a specific and special enactment to combat the menace of laundering of money keeping in view the illegal practices that have been surfacing with respect to transfer and use of tainted money and subsequent acquisition of properties by using the same - The offence of money laundering under the PMLA is therefore layered and multi-fold and includes the stages preceding and succeeding the offence of laundering money as well. No scheduled offence was made out against the Respondents this Court finds that an investigation and proceedings into the PMLA could not have been established against them at the first instance - This Court in its revisional jurisdiction will not proceed into the enquiry of the records documents and other evidence in consideration before the learned Trial Court but shall constrain itself to the findings of the learned Court below in the impugned order and to the question whether there is any patent illegality error apparent on record or incorrectness. In the present matter the Petitioner had filed a Supplementary Complaint based on certain additional documents received by it against the Respondents including the Prosecution Report of Commonwealth Director of the Public Prosecution by the Australian Federal Police. The Petitioner based its findings against the Respondents on the said documents and alleged certain facts based on the apprehension that the amount being transferred from the business accounts of the Respondents were proceeds of drug trafficking and hence was laundered money - the Additional Sessions Judge was not satisfied that the apprehension and suspicion of the Petitioner was well founded and even for the offences under the NDPS no recovery was brought on record. It was observed that the additional evidence did not disclose prima facie any material to infer that the accused persons Respondents herein were involved in the commission of the offences alleged against them. This Court finds force in the argument that since no offences were made out against the Respondents as specified in the Schedule of the PMLA the offence under Section 3/4 of the PMLA also do not arise as the involvement in a scheduled offence is a pre-requisite to the offence of money laundering. The Petitioner was not able to establish the allegations against the Respondents and as such the material produced was not sufficient to find guilt against them - there is no apparent error gross illegality or impropriety found in the Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This Court does not find any cogent reason to interfere with the Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Patiala House Courts New Delhi dated 15th May 2017 in the revisional jurisdiction - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the discharge order passed by the Special Judge under the PMLA. 2. Connection between the scheduled offence and the offence of money laundering under the PMLA. 3. Scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Discharge Order: The Petitioner filed a criminal revision petition seeking to set aside the order dated 15th May 2017 by the learned Special Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which discharged the Respondents from charges under the PMLA and released their attached properties. The learned Special Judge concluded that no prima facie case was made out against the Respondents, observing that the complaints were based on suspicion and that no scheduled offences under the PMLA were established. 2. Connection Between the Scheduled Offence and Money Laundering: The prosecution's case was based on allegations that the Respondents were involved in an international syndicate laundering money generated from drug trafficking in Australia. However, the learned Special Judge, Amritsar, acquitted the Respondents of charges under the NDPS Act and IPC, noting that the prosecution failed to provide cogent evidence linking the Respondents to the drug trade or money laundering activities. The court emphasized that the essential ingredients for the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, including proceeds of crime arising from scheduled offences, were not established. 3. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction: The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is limited to examining the correctness, legality, and propriety of the order passed by the subordinate court. The court is not to reappraise the evidence but to ensure there is no procedural illegality or irregularity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court's judgments in cases like *State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa* and *State of M.P. vs. Mohanlal Soni* were cited to emphasize that at the stage of framing charges, the court only needs to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, not to evaluate the evidence in depth. Findings and Analysis: Factual Matrix: The case originated from an FIR under the NDPS Act and IPC, where the Respondents were implicated based on co-accused statements. The ED initiated proceedings under the PMLA based on intelligence and documents from Australian authorities. Despite the seizure of properties and currency, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found no evidence that these were proceeds of crime from drug trafficking. Legal Provisions: The PMLA defines "proceeds of crime" and requires a connection to scheduled offences. Section 3 of the PMLA criminalizes involvement in activities related to proceeds of crime. The court noted that the legislation aims to combat money laundering but requires a predicate offence to establish money laundering. Court's Conclusion: The court found that the learned Additional Sessions Judge correctly discharged the Respondents as no scheduled offences were established. The revision petition was dismissed, affirming that the material on record did not justify framing charges under the PMLA. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the discharge order, noting no apparent error or illegality in the learned Additional Sessions Judge's decision. The petition was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of. The judgment was ordered to be uploaded on the website forthwith.
|
