9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 577 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - proceeds of crime - schedule offence - obtaining/acquiring huge properties and made bank transactions in the Jharkhand and other states by involving in process and activities connected with the proceeds of the crime of the schedule offences - framing of charges - HELD THAT - The facts of the case of DSP Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran 2005 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT and the case of REKHA NAMBIAR, BHOJRAJ TELI VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2015 (11) TMI 1862 - DELHI HIGH COURT (are entirely different from the facts of this case as the case of DSP Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran is a case where the appeal was considered by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India where the trial court did not consider the defence evidence in its proper perspective but it is settled principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of the accused could not be considered as held by Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , Bengaluru 2020 (1) TMI 1547 - SUPREME COURT . So far, the case of Rekha Nambiar Vs. CBI (is considered the offences involved in that case were not the offences punishable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 but the offences relating to schedule offence under Penal Provision for the offences punishable under section 109 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, the ratios of these two judgments, in the considered opinion of this court, are of not much help to the petitioner. There is no dispute regarding the settled principle of law regarding the materials to be considered by the trial court while considering the discharge petition as also framing of charge but coming to the facts of this case, this court finds that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of having laundered money to the tune of Rs.7,97,96,888/- and also there is specific allegation of adopting three modus operandi for the same. There is no illegality in the impugned order - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order rejecting the petitioner's discharge petition. 2. Framing of charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 3. Evaluation of the petitioner's defense and evidence. 4. Applicability of legal precedents cited by the petitioner. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Order Rejecting the Petitioner's Discharge Petition: The petitioner filed a Criminal Revision petition against the order dated 13.03.2018 by the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, which rejected his discharge petition. The case involved allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets and laundering money while serving as a public servant. The court found substantial evidence against the petitioner, including bank transactions and properties acquired during his tenure as a Member of Legislative Assembly and Minister. The prosecution examined six witnesses, with five supporting the case. 2. Framing of Charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: The charges framed against the petitioner and his associates involved offenses under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner allegedly acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income amounting to Rs. 6,99,95,964/- and laundered Rs. 7,97,96,888/-. The modus operandi included acquiring properties in relatives' names, inflating trust income through fake deposits, and using front companies for money laundering. The court held that there was sufficient material to frame charges and rejected the discharge petition. 3. Evaluation of the Petitioner's Defense and Evidence: The petitioner argued that the Special Judge failed to consider his defense, including his family's landlord background and legitimate income from agricultural land. He also contended that the properties in question were acquired by individuals with their own income sources, supported by Income Tax Returns. The petitioner cited legal precedents emphasizing the need for strong suspicion and prima facie evidence for framing charges. However, the court noted that at the stage of framing charges, the probative value of the material could not be assessed, and the material brought by the prosecution must be accepted as true. 4. Applicability of Legal Precedents Cited by the Petitioner: The petitioner relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Soma Chakravarty vs. State Through CBI, Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, and Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra, to argue that the trial court must apply its judicial mind and find prima facie evidence before framing charges. The court acknowledged these principles but found that the specific allegations and evidence against the petitioner justified the framing of charges. The court also distinguished the petitioner's case from other cited cases, such as DSP Chennai vs. K. Inbasagaran and Rekha Nambiar vs. CBI, noting differences in facts and applicable laws. Conclusion: The court concluded that there was no illegality in the Special Judge's order rejecting the discharge petition and framing charges. The criminal revision petition and interlocutory application were dismissed as being without merit. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the defense of the accused could not be considered, and the material brought by the prosecution must be accepted as true. The court found sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial, including specific allegations of money laundering and disproportionate asset acquisition.
|
