9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , SCGSC, for the respondent and perused the records including the written arguments filed. 3. Before venturing into the respective contentions, let us place on record the requisite bare facts. 3.1. M/s. Hindustan Teleprinters Limited, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai-600032, was a company incorporated way back in the year 1960 as a Public Sector Undertaking. Needless to mention 100% share capital was owned by the Government of India. The company disinvested 74% of the shares in favour of a private company by name M/s. Himachal Futuristic Communications Limited (HFCL). Accordingly, 26% of the remaining shares continues to be with the Government of India. 3.2. The Company entered into a Working Capital Consortium Agreement on 22nd April, 2000 with the State Bank of India ('SBI') as a lead bank. The agreement was secured by deposit of title deeds creating an equitable mortgage. The land measuring 11.021 acres situated in Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, was transferred in favour of M/s. Hindustan Teleprinters Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the HTL"). In the year 2002, the company became NPA. Accordingly, on 07.03.2007, the lands were brought for sale by the SBI Asset S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent was taken on file in C.C. No. 56 of 2018 under Section 45(1) read with Sections 3, 4 and 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Now, the petitioners have filed this criminal original petition before this Court seeking to quash the complaint by invoking Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. The material averments in the complaint of the respondent are as follows: "(iii) The RMZ Properties P. Ltd. Bangalore bid for Rs. 298 crores on 7.3.2007 whereas the property was sold in the year 2013 at Rs. 272 crores. As the Government of Tamil Nadu raised objection to the sale of land during that period of time, the matter was taken upto Hon'ble Supreme Court and finally granted an order in March 2009 in favour of HTL permitting the company to sell the land. In the meantime, the bid of RMZ properties was withdrawn by them. The CBI has categorically explained in detail in its final report at (i) in Tabular Column of the said Final Report found in page 25 of the Annexure typed set filed by the petitioner dated 13.08.2019. (iv) VGN has entered into a Criminal Conspiracy with the members of Consortium Bank and acquired the property much lower than the guid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho handled the HTL Property under SARFAESI Act, it is evident that M/s. VGN Developers P Ltd. represented by their Managing Director, Shri D. Pratish, have jointly conspired with the above persons and have cracked the deal by getting valuable information for finalizing their value for the Private Treaty Sale of the HTL Property, Shri K. Ganeshraj has been paid an amount of Rs. 81,60,000/- which was paid to him in 2 cheques issued by HTL in favour of his proprietary concern in the name of M/s. Thai Easwary Consultancy Services during October 2013 and April 2014. The amount of Rs. 81,60,000/- was paid out of the money of Rs. 2 crores paid by M/s. VGN Developers P Ltd., to M/s. HTL in the guise of service charges for rectification in land revenue records. It is to be noted that there was no written agreement between Shri K. Ganeshraj and M/s. HTL for rendering any Commission Agent Services for having dealt the sale of M/s. HTL's property on record. Shri K. Ganeshraj had not produced any documentary evidences showing the purposes for withdrawal of cash from the Bank Account of M/s. Thai Easwary Consultancy Services on various dates for amounts ranging from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 8,10, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able retrospectively considering the fact that it is a penal statute. To buttress their submissions, the learned Senior Counsels had made reliance on the following decisions. (i) Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India and another (2018 11 Supreme Court Cases 1); (ii) Binod Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and others (2011 (11) Supreme Court Cases 463); and (iii) Mahanivesh Oils and Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2016 (1) High Court cases (Delhi) 265). 7. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondent would submit that the complaint discloses a stand alone offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Section 2(u) of the Act, which defines the "proceeds of crime", makes the position clear that what is required is the involvement of a person qua the "proceeds of crime". These two provisions are wide enough to include the very property in question. This property of 10.4 acres sold by the State Bank of India itself is the "proceeds of crime". As per explanation to Section 2(u) of the Act, which defines the property, the complaint has been filed after thorough investigation. The statements inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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. Section 3 deals with the offence on money laundering. Once the respondent is of the view that a person is involved in any process of activity connected with the "proceeds of crime", which definition is very wide then he gets the power to investigate further. When such an investigation gets completed and found that there indeed was a money laundering, then the matter will have to be proceeded with before the jurisdictional Court, on a complaint being taken on file. Hence, there is no difficulty in holding that both the investigations can go on using the same channel while their waters need not mix all the time. 9. We have also perused the complaint filed. We do find adequate materials available including examination of witnesses and documents. Therefore, this Court cannot invoke Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings at this stage. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not to be done by a Court by drop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision is a person who has committed an offence under section 3 of the Act of 2002. He may not necessarily be a person charged of having committed scheduled offence. The proviso to sub-section (1) thereof stipulates that where a notice under the said sub-section specifies any property 38 fa527-529.sxw as being held by a person on behalf of any other person, a copy of such notice shall also be served upon such other person. Suffice it to observe that even section 8 contemplates adjudication to be done by the Adjudicating Authority after provisional attachment order is passed under section 5 of the Act and upon receipt of complaint under section 5 of the Act. We are not referring to other provisions mentioned in the said section 8(1), as we are dealing only with the case arising under section 5 of the Act. Considering the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the argument of the appellants that action under section 5 of the Act could not have proceeded against them, as they were not charged of having committed a scheduled offence." 11. The Division Bench of this Court in M. Shobana and others Vs. The Assistant Director, Director of Enforcement (W.A. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y take cognizance of the offence upon a complaint by authorized signatory, which means cognizance will be taken of an offence which is separate and independent. The object of issuance of summons is to trace or ascertain the proceeds of crime if any and to take steps in that regard like attaching the proceeds of crime if proved in a given case. 27. Even in case of a person who is not booked for a scheduled offence but is later booked and subsequently acquitted for the offences punishable under different enactments, prescribed under Part 'A' to Part 'C' of the Schedule, still such person can be proceeded under PML Act. In other words, proceedings can be against persons who are accused of a scheduled offence or against persons who are accused of having committed an offence of money laundering and also persons who are found to be in possession of the "proceeds of crime". It is not necessary that a person has to be prosecuted under the PML Act only in the event of such person having committed schedule offence. The prosecution can be independently initiated only for the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 read with section 2(p) which provides that "mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Binod Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in (2011)11 SCC 463)." 15. The High Court of Sikkim in Usha Agarwal V. Union of India through its Secretary (WP (C) No. 23 of 2015 dated 29.08.2017) has observed as under; "56. Scheduled offence is defined under Section 2(y) of the Act and reads as follows; "(y)-scheduled offence? means-- (i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is thirty lakh rupees or more; or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule; As already reflected in the foregoing discussions the offence under the Act is also a stand alone offence. In other words, a person need not necessarily be booked of a scheduled offence, but if he is booked and subsequently acquitted, he can still be prosecuted for an offence under the Act. Under Section 5 and Section 8 of the Act, proceedings can be against persons who are accused of a scheduled offence or against persons who are accused of having committed an offence of money-laundering or persons who are found to be in possession of the-proceeds of crime. It is not nec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcement V. M/s. Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt. Ltd. (LPA. 144 of 2016 dated 30.11.2016) by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners. In the light of the discussion made above, we are of the view that the aforesaid decisions cannot help the petitioners. The learned Additional Solicitor General has also stated that as against the decision rendered in Directorate of Enforcement V. M/s. Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt. Ltd., a Letters Patent appeal in LPA Nos. 144/2016 & W.Ps.(C) No. 4717/2016 and 4747/2016 was filed, wherein it was held by the Division Bench that the findings so recorded by the learned single Judge cannot be construed as conclusive and binding precedent. 19. Accordingly, the above Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, shall not be influenced by any of the observation made by us in this order while disposing of C.C. No. 56 of 2018. We further direct the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to expedite the trial and dispose of C.C. No. 56 of 2018 within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
