9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d others, floated a Financial Establishment in the name and style of Maze Group of Technology in February, 2008, and collected deposits from public on the promise that the deposits would be returned with interest. 3. While the business was progressing well, Manoharan entered into a sale agreement with one Kumar Ganesa Perumal on 05.10.2009 for purchasing 2.99 acres of land in Naakondapalli Village, Hosur at the rate of Rs. 42 lakhs per acre totalling Rs. 1.25 crores and gave a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs as advance to the said Kumar Ganesa Perumal. Some time in the end of January, 2010, the finance business of Maze Group of Technology ran into rough weather and they were not able to return the deposit amounts to the depositors. Hence, on a complai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proceeded with the investigation in ECIR No. 49 of 2010 and after completing the same, filed a complaint in C.C.No.13 of 2015 in the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai (Special Court Formed under Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) against Raja (A1) and Kumar Ganesa Perumal (A2), for quashing which, Kumar Ganesa Perumal is now before this Court. 7. Heard Mr.M.Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Hema, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent. 8. A complete reading of the complaint does not disclose what is the involvement of Kumar Ganesa Perumal(A2) in the offence. It is true that Raja(A1) is an accused in the predicate offence. However, in Para 4.7 of the complain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s property for a sale consideration of Rs. 1.25 crores. It is the allegation of the Enforcement Directorate that this amounted to an offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 11. Ms.Hema, learned Central Government Standing Counsel read through the provisions of Section 3 of the PML Act and contended that the provision is wide enough to bring into it, any person, who, in any manner, involves himself either as an abettor or otherwise in the commission of money laundering. She drew the attention of the Court to Para 5 of the complaint, which reads as follows: "5. It is humbly submitted that whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that under Section 24 of the PML Act, the burden is on the accused to prove that the proceeds of crime was not involved in money laundering. In this case, M/s. Maze Group of Technology was into finance business which cannot be said to be per se a criminal activity. Even assuming for a moment that they were into a criminal activity and the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs that was given as advance by Manoharan to Kumar Ganesa Perumal was proceeds of crime, the mere fact that Kumar Ganesa Perumal agreed to sell his property to Manoharan, cannot, by itself, bring him into the net of Section 3 of the PML Act without anything more. 15. Let us take a hypothetical case: 'X' is the owner of a Mercedes Benz and wants to sell it. Some prospective buyers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
