9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of law that an accused in a PML Act case need not be an accused in the predicate offences case covers this issue. The proceeding that has been dropped is an independent one that was started against the petitioner on charges, inter alia, of amassing disproportionate assets. This case too was initiated by the CBI. But, the instant PMLA proceeding does not owe its origin to the purported predicate offences contained in such subsequent case started by the CBI. Therefore, the dropping of such subsequent proceeding would hardly have much bearing on the PML Act case started in respect of first case concerning predicate offences. The allegations levelled against the petitioner indeed involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be gone into at this stage. There are no merit in the petitioner s application for quashing of proceeding. Therefore, the same is dismissed, however without any order as to costs. - HON BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA For the Petitioner : Mr. Debasish Roy Mr. Satadru Lahiri Mr. Safdar Azam Ms. Sreemayi Roy Advocates. For the Enforcement Directorate: Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee Mr. Subhajit Das Advocates. JUDGMENT JAY SENGUPTA, J: 1. This is an application for quashing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dressing the actual state of affairs which had been brought into the records of this revisional application before this Hon ble Court by way of filing supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner. The Enforcement Directorate deliberately chose not to address the main issue raised by the petitioner in his favour for quashing of the proceedings of Case No. ECIR: KLZO/16/2017 and also the proceedings of Case No. ML 10 of 2020 now pending before the Learned Judge, Special Court, PMLA, Kolkata. With regard to the purported misdeeds of Samiran Kumar Mondal the CBI initiated Case No. RC0102017A0021 dated 11.09.2017, a charge sheet was filed in the said case against Samiran Kumar Mondal. But, the petitioner was only a witness in the said charge sheet. It was nobody s case that the proceeds of the crime of the CBI Case which were amassed by Samiran Kumar Mondal went to the coffers of the petitioner and/or his family members. In the complaint which was filed by the Enforcement Directorate against the petitioner and his family members being Case No. ML 10 of 2020 it was nowhere suggested that the Enforcement Directorate found any money trail from the proceeds of the crime of the CBI ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealth disproportionate to their known source of income. On this issue an investigation was launched by the CBI for certain scheduled offences, which was also terminated by a Court. The petitioner at no point of time submitted that the present ECIR: KLZO/16/2017, or for that matter, the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate being Case No. ML 10 of 2020 would be effaced, but what the petitioner was submitting was that in view of non existence of any scheduled offences against the petitioner, the proceedings of Case No. ML 10 of 2020 should be quashed so far as the petitioner and his family members were concerned. Reliance were placed on judgements/orders of the Hon ble Apex Court in i) Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary and Ors. vs UOI and Ors. (2022) SCC Online SC 929, ii) J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2022) 7 SCC 370, iii) Parvathi Kollur and Anr. Vs. State by Directorate of Enforcement, (2022) Livelaw (SC) 688., iv) Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) and Ors. Vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta and Ors. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 391-392/2018), v) M/s. Nik Nish Retali Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India and Ors. (CRR No. 2752 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with provident fund matters. Ramesh Chandra Singh, the petitioner herein, was the immediate superior officer of Samiran Kumar Mondal, E.O., Dipak Bhattacharya, E.O., Sukumar Shaw, E.O., and they carried out inspections as per the instructions of the petitioner (ECIR bearing number KLZO/16/2017 dated 17.10.2017. The Enforcement Directorate conducted searches on various premises Samiran Kumar Mondal and Ramesh Chandra Singh and seized documents related to movable and immovable properties and cash of Rs. 10.6 lakhs and jewellery and subsequently, Enforcement Directorate had filed an application under Section 17 (4) of the PMLA for retention of seized properties and documents, before the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi, under PMLA, being O.A. No. 245 of 2018. The said Original Application contained panchanamas and necessary particulars and documents. The Adjudicating Authority allowed retention of seized documents and properties vide its order dated 19.12.2018 in O.A. No. 245 of 2018. On the basis of investigation under the PMLA, 2002, the immovable and movable properties collectively valued at Rs. 2,89,50,536/-, along with accrued interest and benefits thereon, were provisionally at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to influence the business organisation under his jurisdiction, directly and also through the other officers and had accrued huge amount of wealth, which was not commensurate with his income. Merely not being named as an accused in the predicate offence, on the basis of which investigation was commenced by the Enforcement Directorate, did not absolve the petitioner from being investigated or treated as an accused in proceedings commenced under the provisions of the PMLA. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India dated February 24, 2023, passed in The Directorate of Enforcement vs. M. Gopal Reddy (Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2023 @ SLP (Crl) No. 8260/2021). It was, inter alia, held by the Hon ble Supreme Court, Now so far as the submissions on behalf of respondent no.1 that respondent no.1 was not named in the FIR with respect to the scheduled offence and that the other accused are discharged/acquitted is concerned, merely because other accused are acquitted, it cannot be a ground not to continue the investigation against respondent no.1 . Reliance was also placed on the judgement of the Hon ble Madras High Court dated September 14, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... half of the Enforcement Directorate and written notes of submissions. 5. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court upheld the validity of several salient features of the PML Act. Among other things, it was held there that if a person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money laundering against him. 6. The Hon ble Apex Court in Pavana Dibbur Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Directorate, reported at 2023 SCC Online SC 1586, relied on the ratio laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) and, inter alia, held as under: .......... a. It is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged, must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence; b. Even if an accused shown in the complaint under the PMLA is not an accused in the scheduled offence, he will benefit from the acquittal of all the accused in the scheduled offence or discharge of all the accused in the scheduled offence. Similarly, he will get benefit of the orders of quashing the proceedings of the scheduled offence; .......... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
