9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ai (for brevity "the subject land"), which lawfully belonged to one Kamalakannan. 2.2. The said Kamalakannan sold 33.5 cents out of 67 cents of the subject land to one Alamelu on 06.07.1973 vide document No.2395 of 1973 on the file of the SRO, Kodambakkam. Similarly, he sold the balance of 33.5 cents of the subject land to one Mangalam, who is Alamelu's sister on 06.07.1973 vide document No.2396 of 1973 on the file of the SRO, Kodambakkam. Mangalam and Alamelu were issued patta in patta Nos.810 and 811, respectively, for the lands that were purchased by them from Kamalakannan. 2.3. Alamelu died on 20.12.2003, leaving behind as her heirs, her husband D.Rajaram and son R.Sairam. The said Rajaram and Sairam gave a Power of Attorney in respect of Alamelu's land to one D.Nagarajan vide document No.290 of 2004 registered on the file of the SRO, Tiruvannamalai. It may be relevant to state here that the said D.Nagarajan is none other than the brother of D.Rajaram and also the husband of Mangalam. 2.4. While these two sisters viz., Mangalam and Alamelu, were enjoying the subject land so purchased, the land sharks on troll, were attracted and they plotted to cheat the gullible sis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to purchase the subject land from one Suruli Andavar, who represented to the former that he has title to the subject land via a sale deed dated 12.04.1967, registered as document No.1427 of 1967 on the file of the SRO, Saidapet. 2.11. On 09.03.2011, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case in ECIR No.11 of 2011, since the charge sheet in C.C.No.5718 of 2010 disclosed commission of a scheduled offence under the PMLA, namely, Section 420 IPC. While the Enforcement Directorate were proceeding with the investigation, Naidu Amrutesh Reddy paid Rs. 4.33 crores to Suruli Andavar and purchased the subject land vide sale deed dated 10.11.2011, registered as document No.6266 of 2011 on the file of the SRO, Virugambakkam. The Revenue Authorities transferred the patta of the subject land in favour of Naidu Amrutesh Reddy. 2.12. When D.Nagarajan, the de facto complainant in Crime No.34 of 2009, got scent of these subsequent events, he filed a petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases), for further investigation and the said petition was allowed. Pursuant to the order of the Special Court, the CCB f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 009 and C.C.No.5718 of 2010 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet; when the real owners viz., Mangalam and Alamelu sisters came to know of the sale deed document No.6266/2011, they have filed a suit in O.S.No.117/2012 in the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, [now renumbered as O.S.No.186/2013 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Poonamallee] against Suruli Andavar [D1], Naidu Amrutesh Reddy [D2], R.S.Narayanan [D3], Sub-Registrar, Saidapet [D4], Sub Registrar, Virugambakkam [D5], Tahsildar, Ambattur [D6] and Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Ambattur [D7] for declaring the sale deed dated 10.11.2011, Document No.6266/2011 as null and void. 7. Mr.V.Karthic, learned Senior Counsel, further submitted that Naidu Amrutesh Reddy is ready and willing to give up all claims to the subject land and is also ready to put the original owners in possession. Naidu Amrutesh Reddy has sworn to an affidavit dated 14.03.2022, which is taken on record and in paragraph Nos.17 to 21, it is stated as follows: "17. I state that since it is now made abundantly clear by various proceedings that my vendor namely Suruli Andavar had no title whatsoever to the Subject Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uruli Andavar Cheque No.000010 dated 4.3.2011 of Bank of Baroda 1,00,000 2. T.Suruli Andavar DD No.368652 dated 23.4.2011 of Andhra Bank, Esplande Branch, Chennai 9,00,000 3. T.Suruli Andavar DD No.368650 dated 23.04.2011 of AB, Esplande Br. 51,00,000 4. K.G.Ramesh, S/o.G.Ganesan DD No.368651 dated 23.04.2011 of AB, Esplande Br. 25,00,000 5. R.S.Narayanan, S/o. K.S.Raghunathan DD No.368653 dated 23.04.2011 of AB, Esplande Br. 15,00,000 6 T.Suruli Andavar Cheque No.410993 dated 13.05.2011 of AB, Esplande Br. 50,00,000 7. T.Suruli Andavar Cheque No. 735283 dated 16.08.2011 of AB, Esplande Br. 50,00,000 8. T.Suruli Andavar Cheque No.737633 dated 13.10.2011 of AB, Esplande Br. 50,00,000 9. T.Suruli Andavar DD No.511137, dated 09.11.2011 of AB, Esplande Dr. 50,00,000 10. T.Suruli Andavar DD No.511138, dated 09.11.2011 of AB, Esplande Dr. 50,00,000 11. T.Suruli Andavar DD No.511139 dated 09.11.2011 of AB, Esplande Br. 50,00,000 12. T.Suruli Andavar DD No.511136 dated 09.11.2011 of AB, Esplande Br. 32,00,000 10. Thus, from the above, it is clear that Naidu Amrutesh Reddy has, over a period of time, paid Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of crime" as defined, which would include concealing, possessing, acquiring or using such property, would be guilty of the offence, provided such persons also project or claim such property as untainted property. Section 3, therefore, contains all the aforesaid ingredients, and before somebody can be adjudged as guilty under the said provision, the said person must not only be involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, but must also project or claim it as being untainted property. " (emphasis supplied) Therefore, we find that the ingredients for fastening criminal liability u/s.3 r/w 4 of the PML Act against Naidu Amrutesh Reddy are absent in the impugned complaint. 13. To recapitulate the facts, even according to the Enforcement Directorate, Naidu Amrutesh Reddy had paid Rs. 4.33 crores to Suruli Andavar, who was not the actual owner, for purchasing the subject land and had the sale registered as Document No.6266/2011. It is not the case of the Enforcement Directorate that Naidu Amrutesh Reddy sold the said subject land to someone, knowing full well that he has no title to it, obtained the sale consideration of Rs. 4.33 crores via the said criminal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
