9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 428 - HC - Money LaunderingGrant of anticipatory bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - allegation of possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income for which he could not satisfactorily account - HELD THAT - It is evident that Dr. Pradeep Kumar Rajendra Kumar Nandlal HUF Shyamal Chakravarty Dharmendra Kumar Dhiraj Naresh Kumar Kejriwal Inderlal Kejriwal and Sitaram Pathak are knowingly involved in acquisition concealment and transfer of proceeds of crime and are knowing involved in projection of tainted properties as untainted - That the complaint under section 45 read with section 44 of the PMLA for commission of offence under section 3 punishable under section 4 of the PMLA was also duly filed on 03.11.2018 before the Hon ble Court of Special Judge CBIcum under PMLA at Ranchi against the six accused persons viz. Dr. Pradeep Kumar (A-1) Rajendra Kumar(A-2) Nand Lal HUF (A-3) Shyamal Chakravarty (A-4) Dharmendra Kumar Dhiraj (A-5) and Naresh Kumar Kejriwal (A-6) wherein cognizance has already been taken by the Hon ble Special Court for the offence under section 3 punishable under section 4 of the PMLA and the same is pending for trial before the Hon ble Special Court. It is no doubt true that the complaint has been made by the respondent only in pursuant to the scheduled offence. In a given case the complaint may emanate from a registration of a case involving scheduled offence. But the fate of the investigation in the said scheduled offence cannot have bearing to the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. Section 2(u) of the Act merely speaks of a criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Therefore we are concerned with the criminal activity qua a scheduled offence. Going through the averments made in the complaint petition and submissions advanced on their behalves and also the judgments relied upon by them and considering the fact that cognizance has already been taken against the petitioner in this case at this stage the document which have been relied by the petitioner and the filed by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 10.09.2013 passed in R.C. Case No. 01(A) of 2011- R whereby cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 taken against the petitioner whereby the Cr.M.P. was allowed and cognizance order dated 10.09.2013 was quashed cannot be relied upon. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Validity of cognizance taken under Section 3 of the PMLA Act, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA Act. 3. Allegations of money laundering and involvement in proceeds of crime. 4. Impact of quashed CBI charge sheet on the current proceedings. 5. Compliance with legal definitions and requirements under the PMLA Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings: The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising from ECIR No. 12/PAT/2012 & 13/PAT/2012 in Complaint Case No. 02/2018. The petitioner also sought to quash the order dated 19.11.2018, which took cognizance against him and other accused under Section 3 of the PMLA Act, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA Act. The petitioner had previously sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by both the High Court and the Supreme Court. 2. Validity of Cognizance Taken: The petitioner argued that the cognizance taken under Section 3 of the PMLA Act was invalid as the foundational CBI charge sheet against him had been quashed. The petitioner contended that since the CBI charge sheet was quashed, the allegations in the ED complaint, which were based on the CBI charge sheet, could not stand. The petitioner further argued that the amount involved (?25.95 lakhs) was not attributable to any proceeds of crime as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA Act. 3. Allegations of Money Laundering: The complaint alleged that the petitioner was involved in the acquisition, concealment, and transfer of proceeds of crime. It was alleged that the petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, arranged loans for the purchase of a flat, which were not reflected in the Income Tax Returns of Nandlal HUF. The complaint further alleged that the petitioner knowingly assisted in projecting tainted properties as untainted, thereby committing an offense under Section 3 of the PMLA Act. 4. Impact of Quashed CBI Charge Sheet: The petitioner highlighted that the CBI charge sheet, which formed the basis of the ED complaint, had been quashed by the High Court. The CBI had admitted that the amount of ?25.95 lakhs was not included in the disproportionate assets of Dr. Pradeep Kumar. The petitioner argued that since the foundational charge sheet was quashed, the ED complaint could not sustain any allegations against him under the PMLA Act. 5. Compliance with Legal Definitions and Requirements: The petitioner argued that the allegations did not meet the legal definitions and requirements under the PMLA Act. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the amount involved did not qualify as "proceeds of crime" and that he was not involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime. The petitioner cited various legal provisions and judgments to support his argument that no case of money laundering was made out against him. Court's Decision: The court, after considering the arguments and submissions, decided not to interfere with the impugned order taking cognizance. The court held that the documents relied upon by the petitioner, including the order quashing the CBI charge sheet, could only be considered during the trial. The court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner liberty to raise all points at the appropriate stage during the trial. Conclusion: The petition to quash the criminal proceedings and the order taking cognizance was dismissed. The court emphasized that the validity of the allegations and the evidence could be examined during the trial, and the petitioner was given the opportunity to raise all relevant points at that stage.
|
