9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 569 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - proceeds of crime - assets disproportionate to known source of income - existence of predicate offence or not - scheduled offence or not - direct allegations are leveled against the accused attracting the ingredients of the offence under section 3 of the PML Act - HELD THAT - From the plain reading of section 3 read with section 2(1)(u) of the PML Act, it is clear that what is made punishable under section 3 is the activity connected with the proceeds of crime either by getting oneself involved in the process or activity connected thereto or directly or indirectly attempting to indulge or knowingly assist or knowingly be a party to the alleged activities and projecting it as untainted property. The prosecution under section 3 of the PML Act cannot be equated with the prosecution under section 13 of the PC Act. Both are distinct and separate offences. A reading of section 3 of PML Act would clearly indicate that even without there being any conviction of the accused in a predicate offence and even if the offender under section 3 of the PML Act is not a party to the predicate offence, still the prosecution could be launched against the offender, if he is found involved in any process or activity connected with the 'proceeds of crime'. Since the allegations made in the complaint and the material produced in support thereof prima facie disclose ingredients of the above offences, the Trial Court was not justified in discharging the accused solely relying on the overruled decisions rendered by the High Court of Jharkhand and Delhi. The material on record clearly makes out sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. In that view of the matter, impugned order cannot be sustained. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
Issues:
1. Discharge of accused Nos. 2 and 3 from alleged offence under PML Act based on acquittal of accused No. 1 in predicate offence. 2. Interpretation of the provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. 3. Application of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging the accused. Issue 1: Discharge of accused Nos. 2 and 3: The revision petition challenged the order discharging accused Nos. 2 and 3 from the alleged offence under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, based on the acquittal of accused No. 1 in the predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused argued that without the predicate offence, prosecution under the PML Act cannot be sustained. The Trial Judge discharged accused Nos. 2 and 3, citing precedents from Delhi High Court and Jharkhand High Court. However, the petitioner contended that these precedents were overruled, and the discharge was not justified solely based on them. The High Court held that the Trial Court erred in discharging the accused solely on the basis of overruled decisions, as the material on record disclosed sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. Issue 2: Interpretation of PML Act: The Court analyzed the provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, emphasizing that prosecution under this Act is distinct from the prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court clarified that under the PML Act, even without a conviction in the predicate offence, prosecution for money-laundering can be sustained as long as the accused continues to possess the proceeds of crime. The Court referred to its previous decision and other High Court judgments to support this interpretation, highlighting that the existence of a predicate offence is not a prerequisite for prosecuting under the PML Act. Issue 3: Application of Section 227 of Cr.P.C.: The Court discussed the application of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows the discharge of accused before the Sessions Court. It differentiated the scope of power under Section 227 from that under Section 239, emphasizing that the Sessions Judge's examination is limited to the record of the case and submissions of the prosecution and accused. The Court cited a previous case to explain the requirements for discharge under Section 227, stating that the Trial Court was not justified in discharging the accused based on the now-overruled decisions from other High Courts. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition, setting aside the Trial Court's order and dismissing the application filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. The Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with the law, emphasizing that the discharge of the accused was not justified based on the outdated precedents and that sufficient grounds existed for proceeding against the accused.
|
