9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was purely in the name of the enterprises, which is not connected with the petitioner, the case of the petitioner that he has no connection with the predicate offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act, cannot be accepted. Despite the fact that the petitioner was not shown in any of the documents relating to the business concern of the 1st accused, the petitioner himself has admitted that substantial amount that was mobilised following the predicate offence alleged to have been committed by the 1st accused, was transferred to the accounts of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statement of the petitioner under Section 50(2) and (3) of 2002 Act, was given under coercion and hence, it cannot be the basis for prosecution. This Court is of the view that it is for the trial Court to decide the said issue and this Court cannot adjudicate this issue in the instant quash petition. This Court is unable to find any one of the circumstances indicated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to quash the complaint as against the petitioner. Therefore, finding that there is no merit in this quash petition, the Petition is dismissed. - Hon& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under 2002 Act is therefore premature and unsustainable in law. 6. The next point submitted by the petitioner is that the petitioner's involvement is not found in the FIR in Crime No.71 of 2012. Though the name of the petitioner was referred to in Cr.No.71 of 2012 there was no offence alleged against the petitioner. The learned counsel then submitted that the petitioner was shown as A2 in the impugned complaint only on the basis of his statement. Referring to the entire statement of the petitioner, learned counsel submitted that the statement that was obtained from the petitioner when he was in custody, cannot be the basis for proceeding against the petitioner for an offence under the 2002 Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to Section 3 of the 2002 Act. 7. Even after hearing the lengthy submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to several documents, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner's involvement is admitted by the petitioner from the materials produced and the submissions of the petitioner himself. 8. First of all, the scope of Section 3 of 2002 Act has been considered in several decisions and a larger B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll play to the said provision so as to include 'every' process or activity indulged into by anyone. Projecting or claiming the property as untainted property would constitute an offence of money-laundering on its own, being an independent process or activity. [Para 187(v)(b), Page 533] (III)The interpretation suggested by the petitioners, that only upon projecting or claiming the property in question as untainted property that the offence of Section 3 would be complete, stands rejected. [Para 187(v)(c), Page 533]. (IV)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 such property, which constitutes the offence of money laundering. The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum.[Para 187(v)(d); Page 533, 534] (V)If the person is finally discharged/acquitted of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en note of the said statement. It is premature to consider the merits of the defence that may be taken by the petitioner at the time of trial. Petitioner's involvement cannot be denied in view of the interpretation of provisions of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 17. It is admitted that the petitioner has purchased a flat by paying substantial cash. The actual consideration that was paid for the property is not disclosed by the petitioner. However, even on a face value, a sum of Rs.45 lakhs is paid as sale consideration by the petitioner. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st accused has obtained power of attorney document even on the very date of sale and that therefore, he is not involved. The Deed of Power of Attorney is not a document of conveyance and therefore, the petitioner is the true owner of the property as on date. The petitioner's counsel indirectly admitted that the consideration was not paid by him. This would go to show that the proceeds of crime had been utilised for the purchase of the property. The explanation now offered by the petitioner may not lead to the conclusion that the petitioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 20. This Court is unable to find any one of the circumstances indicated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to quash the complaint as against the petitioner. Therefore, finding that there is no merit in this quash petition, the Crl.O.P.No.28656 of 2018 is dismissed. Any observations made by this Court in this proceedings will be only for the purpose of considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
