9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 263 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney laundering - proceeds of crime - tainted money - amount found in a car outside his house - HELD THAT - For attracting the penal provisions of the PML Act, the accused should have projected the proceeds of a crime as untainted money. In this case, the sum of ₹ 50,00,000/- as long as it was in the hands of Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) could not have been stated as a tainted money because it is not the case of the CBI in C.C.No.3 of 2013 that Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) had mobilised ₹ 50,00,000/- via a criminal activity. The sum of ₹ 50,00,000/- became the proceeds of a crime only when Andasu Ravinder (A1) accepted it as a bribe. Even before Andasu Ravinder (A1) could project the sum of ₹ 50,00,000/- as untainted money, the CBI intervened and seized the money in the car on 29.08.2011. The prosecution of Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) under the PML Act, is misconceived - Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.60 of 2018 against Padmanabhan Kishore (A2). Analysis: The writ petition sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.60 of 2018 pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai. The case involved allegations of bribery where Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) allegedly paid a sum of ?50,00,000 to Andasu Ravinder (A1) for certain benefits. The CBI seized the money during the investigation, leading to the registration of a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) by the Enforcement Directorate. The complaint filed under the PML Act implicated Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) and others. The key contention was whether the prosecution of Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) under the PML Act was justified. The court considered the facts presented, emphasizing that the sum of ?50,00,000 became the proceeds of a crime only when Andasu Ravinder (A1) accepted it as a bribe. It was noted that the money seized by the CBI from the car outside Andasu Ravinder's house was a corpus delicti in the CBI case. The court highlighted that for the PML Act to apply, the accused must have projected the proceeds of a crime as untainted money. Since Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) did not mobilize the money through criminal activity, and the CBI seized it before it could be projected as untainted, the prosecution under the PML Act was deemed misconceived. In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.60 of 2018 against Padmanabhan Kishore (A2)/petitioner. No costs were awarded, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
|
