9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evisional application has merit to entertain and it is allowed. - C.R.R. No. - 2752 of 2018 With IA No. CRAN 3 of 2019 (Old No. CRAN 1878 of 2019) With CRAN 4 of 2019 (Old No. CRAN 3215 of 2019) With CRAN 5 of 2019 (Old No. CRAN 3267 of 2019) With CRAN 6 of 2019 (Old No. CRAN 4095 of 2019) With CRAN 10 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2022 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA. For the petitioners : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee, Adv. For the Enforcement Directorate: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv., JUDGMENT SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J. A regular case was registered at P.S.CBI BS FC and FC Kolkata for offences punishable U/s 120B/420/409 of IPC read with Section-13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. On the basis of the said FIR another case was registered by the Enforcement Directorate under the Provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. The regular case registered by the CBI was quashed by Hon ble High Court. Now the question before this court in the instant criminal revision is whether quashing of a regular case of scheduled offence shall automatically quashed the subsequent case registered under the provisions of PMLA Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d U/s 5 of PMLA as the same are not purchased from the alleged proceeds of crime . It was further observed that in the circumstances available the allegation of money laundering is prima facie found to be not sustainable for the purpose of attachment under the PMLA 2002. In the criminal proceeding, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to frame charge against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable U/s 420/120B of IPC. The order of framing charge was challenged by the petitioner before the Ld. Chief Judge, City Sessions Court Calcutta. Ld. Chief Judge, vide its order Dated 5 th July 2016 in CR No. 92 of 2016 was pleased to stay the operation of the order of framing of charge by the Learned M.M. In the proceeding before the Learned DRT Kolkata the bank, and the present petitioner and others arrived at a settlement and filed joint application before the Tribunal; wherein the defendants (present petitioners and others) agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 6 Crores as full and final settlement of the dues claimed by the Union Bank of India. Hon ble DRT Kolkata vide its order dated 27th October 2016 recorded the terms of settlement and allowed the defendants therein to pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng on behalf of the petitioner cited decision passed by the Hon ble Apex Court three Judges Bench in Vijay Madanlal Chowdhury and Ors vs. Union of India and Ors. He further argued that the ratio of Vijay Madanlal Chowdhury was also accepted by the Hon ble High Court at New Delhi in a bunch of cases of same nature. In a subsequent criminal appeal being No. 1254 of 2022 Hon ble Supreme Court has adopted the ratio of Vijay Madanlal Chowdhury case. So he argued that this being position of law, the instant ECIR case registered by the respondent No. 1 Enforcement Directorate and the M.L. case pending before the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta required to be quashed. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 Enforcement Directorate submitted that by virtue of the PMLA case the property of huge amount was seized. Though the bank has arrived at a settlement vide OTS before the DRT Kolkata but the criminal activities of the petitioners can not be wiped out. He further argued that huge amount of public money was involved in this case and the petitioners have deliberately committed the crime for which the proceeding under PMLA was initiated. He fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. It is at investigation stage. The petitioners have to cooperate with the Investigating Officer by appearing before him pursuant to the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate. 49. In the present case also, the total OTS payment done by petitioner No. 4 is only a small fraction of total dues. The details of the same are specifically mentioned in the tabular form mentioned supra. The allegation against petitioner No. 4 is that it has caused a massive loss of Rs. 182.99 Crores to the public sector banks and the same is also specifically mentioned in the complaint dated 30.06.2018 and 29.02.2020 by the Central bank of India and Bank of Maharashtra. The said money ultimately belongs to the public and tax payers. Thus, prima facie, the petitioners have committed fraud not only against one or two banks, but against the public in general and it is a loan fraud and it is an economic offence . 50. Such economic frauds adversely affect the financial and economic well- being of the Nation and have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between petitioner No. 4 and the above said banks. The mere fact that the banks which are already under stress to clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irectorate and Anrs. that The Undeniable sequitur of the above reasoning is that firstly, authorities under the PMLA cannot resort to action against any person for money-laundering on an assumption that the property recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offence has been committed; secondly, the scheduled offence must be registered with the jurisdictional police or pending inquiry by way of complaint before the competent forum; thirdly, in the event there is already a registered scheduled offence but the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved by a Court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or quashing of the criminal case of the scheduled offence, there can be no action for money laundering against not only such a person but also any person claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence. On the basis of the above discussion made by the Hon ble Apex Court and Hon ble High Courts. This court is a view that the pendency of PMLA case cannot be sustained at this juncture. Moreover, Hon ble Appellate Tribunal PMLA is of specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
