9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not wipe off the offence of money laundering and still the authorities are empowered to conduct further investigation, if required, or to trace out proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA. The very objective of the PMLA to prevent money laundering and to provide power for confiscation of property cannot be taken away by issuing a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the authorities from summoning any person under the PMLA. Such an omnibus direction if issued would undoubtedly defeat the very purpose and objective of the PMLA. The present Writ Petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the victims have received money and filed affidavits stating that they have received the money paid by them to the accused or to the institution. Based on the affidavit, the High Court quashed the proceedings in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Mere repayment of money involved in a crime would not wash away the offence of money laundering under the PMLA, if any committed - The authority of Law conferred under the PMLA to the competent authorities cannot be taken away by issuing a Writ of Mandamus. There are no reasons to consider the relief a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received the money and given acknowledgments. Since the petitioner has complied with the conditional order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned Single Judge of this Court quashed F.I.R. in Crime No.143 of 2016 in Crl.O.P.No.3154 of 2017. Pertinently, the F.I.R. was quashed as against the petitioner herein alone. 4. Relying on the quashment of the F.I.R., the learned Senior Counsel relied on the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, wherein it is contended that the scheduled offence has been quashed against the petitioner and therefore, no proceeding under the PMLA can be instituted against the petitioner. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose by stating that the F.I.R. was quashed in respect of the petitioner only with reference to the scheduled offence and still the Enforcement Directorate is empowered to proceed with the case under the PMLA, if required or if additional materials are available against other accused or any other person, who have involved in an offence under Section 3 of PMLA. Mere settlement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not a public interest litigation. 37. According to the police and the Enforcement Directorate, 133 parents have been cheated to the tune of Rs. 91 crores. The Enforcement Directorate has listed 4 properties belonging to Madha, totally valued at Rs. 6,34,50,000/- as representing the proceeds of the crime. Even assuming for a moment that these are proceeds of the crime, this Court poses to itself the question as to where is the balance of Rs. 84,65,50,000/-. 46. It is true that Section 24 does shift the burden of proof on the accused. However, the said presumption can be applied in the criminal case, only if the prosecution submits sufficient materials to satisfy the ingredients of the penal provision, viz., Section of the PMLA. In this case, Pachamuthu himself had deposited Rs. 75 Crores and has given a bank quarantee for Rs. 10 Crores, to which, the Enforcement Directorate has turned a Nelson's eye. But, the Enforcement Directorate asserts that the four properties were acquired by Madhan from and out of the money he had received from 133 parents. In fact, records from the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court show that after this Court, in Crl.O.P.No.3710 of 2017, ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petition, the very objectives of the PMLA will be defeated. 8. Let us now consider the powers conferred on the competent authority under the PMLA. Section 44(1)(d)(ii) enumerates that the complaint shall be deemed to include any subsequent complaint in respect of further investigation that may be conducted to bring any further evidence, oral or documentary, against any accused person involved in respect of the offence, for which complaint has already been filed, whether named in the original complaint or not . 9. Regarding the powers of the authorities to summon, Section 50 of the PMLA contemplates procedures as under:- (1) The Director shall, for the purposes of section 13, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:-- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a [reporting entity] and examining him on oath; (c) compelling the production of records; (d) receiving evidence on affidavits; (e) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses and documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng under the PMLA. Mere quashment of the F.I.R in respect of the petitioner alone in predicate offence would not wipe off the offence of money laundering and still the authorities are empowered to conduct further investigation, if required, or to trace out proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA. The very objective of the PMLA to prevent money laundering and to provide power for confiscation of property cannot be taken away by issuing a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the authorities from summoning any person under the PMLA. Such an omnibus direction if issued would undoubtedly defeat the very purpose and objective of the PMLA. Thus, the relief sought for in the present petition cannot be entertained by this Court. 11. The present Writ Petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the victims have received money and filed affidavits stating that they have received the money paid by them to the accused or to the institution. Based on the affidavit, the High Court quashed the proceedings in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Mere repayment of money involved in a crime would not wash away the offence of money laundering under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
