9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Nagarajan was present and his statement was recorded. The search resulted in the seizure of Rs. 7,20,05,000/- in cash. In his statement, Nagarajan stated inter alia that he, along with his compatriots S. Martin and G. Moorthy, had printed lottery tickets of other States and had sold the same without license in Chennai and had acquired the seized cash of Rs. 7,20,05,000/-. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to verbatim reproduce the statement of Nagarajan in Tamil as under:- 3. Based on the above said statement, the Inspector of Police, Adambakkam Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 304 of 2012 on 12.03.2012 under Section 294-A, 420 and 120-B of IPC against Nagarajan (A1), S. Martin (A2) and G. Moorthy (A3). Nagarajan was placed under arrest on the same day and was remanded in judicial custody. On coming to known about the huge seizure of Rs. 7,20,05,000/-, the Enforcement Directorate, registered a case on 19.03.2012 in ECIR/CEZO/02/2012/APS as the FIR in Crime No. 304 of 2012 disclosed a 'scheduled offence' viz., under Section 420 of IPC under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. While Nagarajan was in judicial custody in Crime No. 304 of 2012, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. S. Sasikumar, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (ED Cases) appearing for the respondent. 6. At the outset Mr. S. Sasikumar, submitted that the petitioners (A1 & A4) and A3 filed applications in Crl.M.P. Nos. 22030 of 2021 for discharge before the trial court which came to be dismissed on 27.03.2017. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P. No. 7632 of 2017 on 17.04.2017 but, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.12.2021 as this court was not inclined to accept the submissions of the accused. However, Mr. N.R. Elango, the learned senior counsel refuted the aforesaid contentions and submitted that no arguments were advanced in the quash petition and the same was merely dismissed as withdrawn and therefore, there is absolutely no bar for the accused to file a second quash petition. 7. We carefully considered the aforesaid rival submissions and decided not to dismiss the present quash petition on the aforesaid ground. 8. Mr. N.R. Elango, contended that the inclusion of Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC subsequently in the FIR in Crime No. 304 of 2012 cannot give a cause of action for the Enforcement Directorate to maintain the complaint inasm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een attached and pending adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority. In respect of such action, the designated officials have been empowered to summon any person for collection of information and evidence to be presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is not necessarily for initiating a prosecution against the noticee as such. The power entrusted to the designated officials under this Act, though couched as investigation in real sense, is to undertake inquiry to ascertain relevant facts to facilitate initiation of or pursuing with an action regarding proceeds of crime, if the situation so warrants and for being presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is a different matter that the information 680 Supra at Footnote Nos. 120 (also at Footnote No. 41) 681 Supra at Footnote No. 43 and evidence so collated during the inquiry made, may disclose commission of offence of money-laundering and the involvement of the person, who has been summoned for making disclosures pursuant to the summons issued by the Authority. At this stage, there would be no formal document indicative of likelihood of involvement of such person as an accused of offence of money- laundering. If the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistered by the Enforcement Directorate. While he was in judicial custody, the Enforcement Directorate obtained the necessary permission from the court and enquired him in the prison under the watchful eyes of the prison authorities. At that time, Nagarajan (A1) gave a statement implicating himself which we have adverted to above. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the statement recorded by the Enforcement Directorate on 22.03.2012 will not be hit by either Section 25 of the Evidence Act or Articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The complaint in this case has been laid against Nagarajan (A1) and others only on 07.01.2016, but, whereas the statement was recorded on 22.03.2012. Even in that statement he has stated that the sum of Rs. 7,20,05,000/- was acquired by printing and selling lottery tickets of other States in Tamil Nadu. Though Nagarajan had retracted the statement on 19.04.20212 after his release from the prison that would not affect its relevancy or admissibility in the present trial. In fact, in K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, (1997) 3 SCC 721 Supreme Court has held that if a confession is retracted, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
