9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the net of section 3 r/w 4 of the PMLA as abettors. In other words, where the principal offender projects a tainted property as an untainted one, not only will he be held liable, but also all others who had helped him to project the tainted property as untainted. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein was projecting a tainted property as an untainted one nor is it their case that the petitioner had abetted D. Sridhar in projecting a tainted property as an untainted one. The petitioner was only a bonafide purchaser of the impugned property from the daughter of D. Sridhar. This sale deed is a registered document, which the prosecution themselves rely upon - A perusal of the averments in the sale deed shows that the petitioner had paid various amount by RTGS to Kumari, the mother of Dhanalakhmi Sridhar on 31.12.2015, 13.01.2016 and 23.02.2016 and has also deducted TDS for that. This payment to the mother of Dhanalakshmi Sridhar, which has been reflected in the sale deed itself, cannot amount to an offence u/s.3 r/w 4 of the PMLA. The prosecution of the petitioner u/s.3 and 4 of the PMLA in S.C.No.74 of 2017 is an abuse of process of law. Ergo, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned property in favour of her daughter Dhanalakshmi Sridhar, who was 20 years old then, vide a deed of settlement dated 02.01.2016 registered as Document No.03 of 2016. 2.5. The petitioner belongs to the Pothy family, which runs a chain of textile outlets in various parts of Tamil Nadu. This Pothy family appears to be owning land measuring 64734 sq.ft. in Survey No.555/2, Kanchipuram, which is adjacent to the impugned property. The impugned property is a pathway connecting the main road with the property of the Pothys in Survey No.555/2. Therefore, the Pothy brothers, numbering 5, purchased the impugned property from Dhanalakshmi Sridhar for a total sale consideration of ₹ 5,30,74,500/- by a deed of sale dated 29.02.2016 registered as Document No.1184/2016 and since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Alleging that this property has been acquired by D.Sridhar s family via criminal activities, the Enforcement Directorate passed an order of provisional attachment dated 02.09.2016 u/s.5 of the PMLA. This order of provisional attachment was challenged by the Pothy brothers in W.P.No.34694 of 2016 and the matter was heard by one of us [P.N.Pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laint filed against Ramesh Pothy is not sustainable and is filed after-thought as the IO has failed to trace the amount paid by the appellant to the family members of Late Sridhar. In order to save its skin, the complaint against the Ramesh Pothy has been filed. This is because of the reasons that the appellants are not directly or indirectly involved in the money laundering. They have no direct link or nexus with deceased who has now passed away. 53. The appellants have no objection if criminal proceedings already pending against accused parties may continue as per law. 54. The appellants despite of above are agreeable to deposit a sum of ₹ 6,47,25,000/- as value assessed by the ED in the Investigation Report with the respondent (without prejudice) in order to secure the entire value of the property filed by the ED in the reason to believe. The figure mentioned by the hearing officer in the impugned order is fanciful and accepted as per the case of ED in subsequent pleadings. The real figures are mentioned in the reason-to-believe on the basis of which the provisional attachment order was passed. The said figures could not have been changed. 2.7. The appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kshmi Sridhar [A4], Arul [A5], Kamalakannan [A6] and Ramesh Pothy [A7]. Challenging the prosecution, Ramesh Pothy [A7] has filed the present petition u/s.482 Cr.P.C. 3. Heard Mr. Nithyaesh Natraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. G.Hema, learned Special Public Prosecutor [ED] appearing for the respondent. 4. At the outset, Mrs. G.Hema, learned Special Public Prosecutor [ED], submitted that this Court had dismissed the quash petition of the co-accused in this case viz., Dhanalakshmi Sridhar in Crl.O.P.No.24316 of 2018 vide order dated 04.02.2021 and so this petitioner deserves the same fate. This order has been passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us [P.N. Prakash, J] was a member. 5. This Court had dismissed the quash petition of Dhanalakshmi Sridhar by holding that it would be too premature to quash the proceedings against her by saying that she would not be aware of the fact that the property was acquired by her father via criminal activities as there is a reverse burden u/s.24 of the PMLA, which has to be discharged by Dhanalakshmi Sridhar only during trial and not in proceedings u/s.482 Cr.P.C. However, in this case, there is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty in Kanchipuram District involved in money laundering and worth around ₹ 6.50 Crores, from the possession of Ms. Dhanalakshmi Sridhar (Accused-4 herein) and the said immovable property has been registered in the name of Shri S. Ramesh Pothy along with his brothers. The details of the said transactions are explained as under: Sridhar (A1) has involved in major criminal activities and committed Scheduled Offences and from the major criminal activities, he gained huge Proceeds of Crime. From the part of gained Proceeds of Crime, he acquired/purchased properties in his name and in the name of his family members and in the name of his associates. Sridhar (A1) has acquired the subject property from the part of proceeds of crime and registered the property in the name of his wife, Smt. S. Kumari. Subsequently, he has transferred the said property to his daughter through his wife and registered in the name of his daughter, Ms.Dhanalakshmi Sridhar. Immediately on transfer, Ms. Dhanalakshmi Sridhar has sold the said property, which was acquired from the major criminal activities by her father, to Sri.S. Ramesh Pothy (Accused 7 herein) and his 4 brothers and got ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration transaction was made between M/s.Pothys Private Ltd. (who is not the purchaser) and Smt. S. Kumari (who is not the seller). Therefore, Shri S.Ramesh Pothy has been knowingly and actually involved in the money-laundering activity connected with the proceeds of crime derived by Shri Sridhar (Accused-1 herein), including its possession and acquisition, use and claiming and projecting the same as untainted properties and thus committed the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 and has been guilty of offence of money laundering under Section 2(1)(p) r/w Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, punishable under Section 4 of the said Act.' 11. A reading of the above shows that the petitioner, being the Managing Director of the Pothy brothers, has been prosecuted for purchasing the impugned property from the daughter of an alleged criminal. We are carefully using the word alleged criminal because Sridhar is no more alive for him to contest the allegations against him. 12. For a prosecution u/s.3 r/w 4 of the PMLA, the ingredients are two fold as held by the Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India and Another (2018) 11 SCC 1: &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein was projecting a tainted property as an untainted one nor is it their case that the petitioner had abetted D. Sridhar in projecting a tainted property as an untainted one. The petitioner was only a bonafide purchaser of the impugned property from the daughter of D. Sridhar. 15. Mrs. G. Hema, learned Special Public Prosecutor [ED] submitted that the petitioner had paid only ₹ 25,43,755/- to Dhanalakshmi Sridhar, their vendor and not the entire sale consideration of ₹ 5,30,74,500/-. The Enforcement Directorate obtained this information from the sale deed dated 29.02.2016, which is a relied upon document. This sale deed clearly shows in page No.15, the schedule of payment that has been made by the Pothy brothers for the purchase of the impugned property. For the sake of convenience, we extract the payment portion from the said sale deed: 'NOW THIS DEED OF SALE WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:- 1. In pursuance to the above, the VENDOR doth hereby admit and acknowledge the receipt of the entire Sale consideration of ₹ 5,30,74,500/- (Rupees Five Crores Thirty Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) from the PURCHASERS as detailed hereunder: a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
