9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 85 - HC - Money LaunderingIllegal quarrying - quarrying illegally in Government lands which were not allotted to appellant - scheduled offence or not - inadequate evidence/conclusion - case of petitioners is that when the report submitted by Mr. Sagayam, I.A.S. (who was appointed to conduct an enquiry into the allegations) itself has not been disclosed or made public and when the said report is also being contested by the licencees, the foundation for the present prosecution under the PML Act is weak - HELD THAT - The issue decided by this Bench very recently in M. SURESH KHATRI AND M/S. MOHANLAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE 2021 (6) TMI 990 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that The prosecution has to prove the offence, by adducing evidence and this opportunity has to be given to the prosecution in this case too. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Quashing of proceedings in C.C. No.12 of 2018 before the Principal District Court, Madurai. 2. Allegations of illegal quarrying in Government lands by certain entities. 3. Registration of FIRs for various offences under IPC and other Acts. 4. Filing of complaint under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act). 5. Challenge to the prosecution under the PML Act. 6. Examination of properties and fixed deposits in relation to the PML Act. 7. Validity of the order of the trial Court taking cognizance of the offence. Analysis: 1. The petition sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.12 of 2018 before the Principal District Court, Madurai. Entities involved in illegal quarrying were accused of mining in Government lands not allotted to them, leading to the registration of FIRs for various offences under IPC and other Acts. 2. The Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint under the PML Act after investigating the case, triggering a challenge to the prosecution under the PML Act. The defense argued against the foundation of the prosecution citing various reasons, including the timing of property purchases and fixed deposits. 3. The defense contended that the trial Court's order taking cognizance of the offence lacked proper application of mind. Citing legal precedents, the defense sought to challenge the validity of the order, emphasizing the importance of due application of mind before summoning accused parties. 4. The Court dismissed the criminal original petition, stating that the registration of an FIR can lead to an investigation under the PML Act if it discloses a schedule offence. The Court emphasized that the legality of property acquisitions and fixed deposits would be determined during trial, not in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Legal precedents were cited to clarify the standards for summoning accused parties under Section 204 CrPC, highlighting that detailed inquiry into the merits of the case is not required at the stage of taking cognizance based on a police report or complaint. The Court upheld the validity of the trial Court's order taking cognizance of the offence.
|
