9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to file the appeal against the judgement and the trial under PMLA ought to have been conducted along with the trial with the case registered under schedule offence. The respondent apparently did not make efforts in this regard. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, relating to the offence of money laundering under section 3 of PMLA, 2002, warranting further investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. Therefore, a case under PMLA was registered by Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore Zonal Office in File No. ECIR/01/BGZO/2016, dated 09/02/2016, with a view to investigate the case involving commission of an offence of money laundering, being authorized in terms of Section 48 and 49 of PMLA read with Notification No. 441(E ) dated 01/07/2005. 8. The details of the properties registered in his name, in the name of his wife, father and mother are mentioned in para-6 of the Impugned Order. 9. Sri Chandrashekar Kakkeri has also filed the written submission in support of his reply. In para 1 to 30, he has given the detailed reply to each and every movable and immovable property about him as well as his wife, father and mother. 10. His case before the Adjudicating Authority was that all the properties are legally acquired by him and his family members and none of the properties was purchased or acquired from the proceeds of the crime. The comprehensive details are mentioned in the Impugned Order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d were bogus or were part of a calculated device. The fact that these amounts were actually received from the sources so named were satisfactorily proved by the accused. Furthermore, these amounts and assets are well reflected in the assets and liability statements filed by the accused." 60. Insofar as other assets and income as disclosed by the prosecution are not seriously disputed by the accused. After analysing each and every items as stated supra, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the probative value of each items, it appears that preponderance of probability of the income and expenditure as discussed supra are to be added and deducted respectively. Upon considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court determined the actual income and assets held by the accused and his family members along with expenditure incurred by him which are as under:- ANNEXURE-A Assets held by the accused and his family members during check period determined by the Court. Total assets held by the accused and his family members as per prosecution Rs,83,82,877/- The items liable to be deleted ₹ 78,121/- 1. Difference of v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LIC policy premium of ₹ 30,000/- (i.e. 2 instalments) standing in the name of Ashwini which was wrongly calculated as 3 instalments of ₹ 15,000/- each, out of which one (1) instalment be deleted. Rs.15,000/- 2. Difference of LIC policy instalment wrongly included in the name of Basavarajeshwari Rs.25,000/- 3. Difference of LIC policy instalment wrongly included in the name of Ankita Rs.10,000/- 4. Difference in payment of LIC premium in the name of accused Rs.67,967/- 5. KGID loan repayment which was wrongly added in the expenditure account of the accused Rs.34,397/- 6. Difference of Family expenditure Rs.4,14,717/- TOTAL Rs.5,67,081/- Rs.4,04,2295/- (-) ₹ 5,67,081/- = Rs.34,75,214/- ANNEXURE-C Known source of income of the accused as per the prosecution as shown in the charge sheet Rs.52,73,662/- The items of income to be added 1. Agricultural income Rs.23,28,087/- 2. Rental income Rs.2,27,400/- TOTAL Rs.25,55,487/- Grand total ₹ 52,73,662/- + ₹ 25,55,487/- = Rs.78,29,149/- ANNEXURE-D a) Total assets held by the accused as determined by the Court Rs.49,31,307/- b) Total expenditure incurred as determined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /o Amarappa Kakkeri is found not guilty of the offence under Section 13 (1) (e) R/W Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, exercising the power under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. accused - Chandrashekar S/o Amarappa Kakkeri is acquitted for the offence under Section 13 (1) (e) R/W Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988." 16. This fact was brought to the notice of this Tribunal. Copy of the Judgement was also filed. It was argued that once the appellant was acquitted from the schedule offence and no appeal was filed, the attached properties are liable to be released. 17. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that one of the reason for quashing the PMLA complaint is that the amendment to the provisions of section 8(3)(b) of PMLA Act with effect from 15.02.2013 are as under:- Prior to 15.02.2013 "The following clause substituted by the Prevention of Money - laundering (Amendment) Act,2002 (2 of 2013), which came into effect from 15 February, 2013." (b) "become final after the guilt of the person is proved in the trial court and order of such trial court becomes final." After 15.02.2013 (b) "becomes final after an order of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e considered view that once the appellant Sri Chandrashekhar has been acquitted by the Special Court under the Schedule Offence after the trial and no appeal has been filed by the State against the said Judgement (as informed by the parties), the appeal is liable to be allowed. The complaint under schedule offence was decided on merit after recording the evidence whereby FIR and charge sheet have been quashed by the Special Court. Once the acquittal order is passed against the appellant holding that he was not involved in the Prevention of Corruption Act and he has purchased/ acquired the properties in legal resources, the question of money laundering does not arise. The allegations are same and ECIR was registered on the basis of charge sheet. There were only two options left after acquittal, either to file the appeal against the judgement and the trial under PMLA ought to have been conducted along with the trial with the case registered under schedule offence. The respondent apparently did not make efforts in this regard. 25. Thus, the present appeal is allowed. Both the orders dated 27.09.2016 (provisional attachment order) and impugned order dated 20.12.2016 are set-aside. 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
