9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed offence or the criminal case, is quashed by the court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money laundering against him or anyone claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him. As already discussed, the petitioner is being investigated for taking benefits from Mantena Srinivas. The said person was acquitted of the predicate offence and the proceedings against him in the present ECIR were also quashed on the ground that there were no criminal proceeds. In the said circumstances when there are no criminal proceeds , following the law as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudary s case this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Petition allowed. - HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER For the Petitioner : Alay H Razvi For the Respondent : Anil Prasad Tiwari SC For ED ORDER: The petitioner is questioning the continuance of investigation against him in ECIR/HYZO/36/2020, dated 15.12.2020, by the Enforcement Directorate. The said investigation was initiated on the basis of the case filed by the Economic Offences Wing (for short EOW ) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies have no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings under the PML Act. The authorities cannot justify the continuation of proceedings in spite of acquittal of main accused on the ground that there were previous tampering of e-tenders based on the suspicion, which action amounts of abuse of process. 5. Learned Counsel also relied on the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court in Parvathi Kollur v. State by Directorate of Enforcement in Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4258 of 2021) wherein it was held as follows; Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the issue as involved in this matter is no more res integra, particularly for the view taken by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary others v. Union of India and others, decided on 27.07.2022 where, the consequence of failure of prosecution for the scheduled offence has been clearly provided in the following terms: 187 ..(d) The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity connected with suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court vide Crl. Appeal No. 534 of 2023. The Honourable Supreme Court had set aside the Anticipatory Bail vide order dated 24.02.2023. 8. The Honourable Supreme Court found that the allegations against this petitioner are serious and required to be investigated thoroughly. According to the Investigating Agency, material was collected connecting the petitioner herein for taking undue advantage from Mantena Srinivas Raju. 9. Learned Assistant Solicitor General further argued that on the basis of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary s case, proceedings cannot be quashed for the reason of the Honourable Supreme Court while setting aside the Anticipatory Bail has also considered the acquittal order in the predicate offence. The Honourable Supreme Court had considered both the allegations against the petitioner herein and also the acquittal order in the predicate offence, however, set aside the anticipatory bail order. In such circumstances, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner and accordingly, the petition has to be dismissed. He relied on paragraph Nos. 290, 295 and 425 of the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary s case and argued that the proceeds of crime have to be dealt with and the culp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner was cancelled by a 2-Judge Bench. 15. Article 141 of the Constitution recognizes the doctrine of stare decisis. The doctrine of stare decisis establishes that the subordinate courts are bound to follow the decisions pronounced by the higher courts while dealing with cases with similar legal issues. Ignoring the ruling of the Hon ble Supreme Court, is both judicial indiscipline and also in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 16. The issue of ratio decidendi has been explained by the Supreme Court in Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. M.R. Apparao and Another AIR 2002 SC 1598 , wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Article 141 of the Constitution unequivocally indicates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. 17. In another judgment pronounced on 02-03-2020 by the Supreme Court in Dr. Shah Faesal and Others vs. Union Of India and another (2020) 03 SC CK 0001 it was emphasized by the Apex Court that: It is only the principle laid down in the judgment that is binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution. 18. In Siddhara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
