9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Crime'' including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use. So that in the Act under Section 44 explanation (i) clearly indicated that the Special Court while dealing with the offence under the Act shall not be dependent upon any orders passed, in respect of the schedule offence. Another argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the observation of the trial Court, while granting bail, that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence will not be enough to quash the case which has to be decided only on legal evidence let in by the respondent. Therefore, we find that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this aspect is legally unsustainable and is accordingly rejected. The explanation to Section 44(1) of the PMLA is complete answer to the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The distinction that the counsel for the petitioners sought to make for distinguishing the law laid down by this Court in VGN Developers [ 2019 (10) TMI 1236 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] is a distinction without a difference. Considering the above fact, we should not forget that money laundering, being an economic offence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Act. The petitioners filed a bail petition and the CBI also filed a petition for police custody. Both the petitions were dismissed on 30.12.2016. To fill up the lacuna and to secure police custody, the CBI filed the second FIR in Crime No.RC MAI 20016 A0051 on 30.12.2016 and CBI further registered the third FIR in Crime No. RC MAI 2016 A0052 for the same transaction with similar offences. The FIR in RC MAI 20016 A0051 and RC MAI 2016 A0052 were quashed by this Court on 27.06.2018 in Crl.O.P.No.409 of 2017. Based on the FIR in RC.MA1 2016 A0040 dated 19.12.2016, the respondent filed enforcement case in information report (ECIR) No.19/2016 against these petitioners and others and investigated under the PMLA. The CBI, after a long period, filed the closure report in Crl.M.P.No.2604 of 2020 in RC.MA1 2016 A0040 before the XI Additional Sessions CBI Court. The learned judge accepting the closure report, closed the FIR. Thus, the CBI concluded the investigation in Crime No. RC.MA1 2016 A0040 under Section 120(b) r/w 409, 420 IPC and 13(2), r/w 13(1) (C ) and 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner Shri J.Sekar Reddy and others by filing a closure report unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Enforcement (PMLA), cochin Zone'' and thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed to quash the above said case. 6.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the commission of schedule offence in FIR has been closed by filing closure report, the Special Court, while dealing with the offences under this PMLA shall not depend upon any orders passed in respect of the schedule offence to support his arguments. He relied upon the explanation of Section 44 of the PMLA which reads as follows: 44. (d) ''[Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that,-- (i) the jurisdiction of the Special Court while dealing with the offence under this Act, during investigation, enquiry or trial under this Act, shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the schedule offence, and the trial of both sets of offences by the same Court shall not be construed as joint trial;'' and also relied upon the decision of this Court in M/s. VGN Developers Pvt Ltd and Anr Vs the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, (Crl.O.P.No.9796 of 2019), in which this Court dismissed the quash petition and remit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After the search, the Income Tax Authorities informed the CBI Authorities. The CBI Authorities enquired and registered FIR in Crime No. RC.MA1 2016 A0040 under Section 120(b) r/w 409, 420 IPC and 13(2), r/w 13(1) (C ) and 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Apart from this FIR, the CBI registered two other FIRs against the petitioners/accused in RC MAI 20016 A0051 and RC MAI 2016 A0052 for the same offences which were quashed by this Court on 27.06.2018. 10. Since the offences under Sections 120(B), 420 IPC 1860 and Sections 13(2), r/w 13(1) (c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were schedule offences under Section 2(1)(x) and 2(1)(y) of the PMLA, the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) No.19 of 2016 dated 19.12.2016 was registered against the petitioner Shri.J.Sekar Reddy and others. The respondent had enquired and conducted investigation. After recording the statement of the petitioners and others, the respondent found new currencies of ₹ 2,000/- for a total value of ₹ 33,74,92,000/-. The details are as follows: Sl. No. Description Amount (in Rs.) New Currency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transporting the said daily collection of SRS Mining to reach Shri Sekar Reddy at Chennai. Thus in getting such conversations of demonitised notes into new currency and into 1kg gold bars, Shri J .Sekar Reddy had committed criminal offences specified under section 120B r/w.409 420 IPC 1860 r/w. section 13(2), 13(1)(c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; that out of these section 120B 420 IPC, 1860 and Section 13(2), 13(1) (c ) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; are schedule offences under PMLA as envisaged in section 2(1) (x) 2 (1)(y) of PMLA that from the said criminal activities, he acquired the part of proceeds of crime in the form of movable property as mentioned in the schedule of property detailed above, as defined under section 2(1)(u) of PMLA. It has also been brought on record that he had arranged in conversion of new currency to the extent of ₹ 6-7 crores through Parasmal Lodha who through his Hong Kong sources managed such conversion in India throug Mahaveer Hirani and Ashok M jain. It is submitted that though in his statements, Shri Sekar Reddy refused to divulge factual information in respect of Amarpal as referred by Shri Parasmal Lodha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the schedule offence. In other words, the PMLA deals only with the process or activity with the ''Proceeds of the Crime'' including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use. So that in the Act under Section 44 explanation (i) clearly indicated that the Special Court while dealing with the offence under the Act shall not be dependent upon any orders passed, in respect of the schedule offence. 13. Another argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the observation of the trial Court, while granting bail, that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence will not be enough to quash the case which has to be decided only on legal evidence let in by the respondent. Therefore, we find that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this aspect is legally unsustainable and is accordingly rejected. 14. In this case, the Income Tax Department seized a total value of cash of ₹ 106,98,89,800/- and gold of 128.495 kg, worth ₹ 36,72,07,311/. Further, the respondent found ₹ 33,74,92,000/- in the denomination of ₹ 2,000/- notes during the demonetisation period. It is common knowledge that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
