9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, then they are entitled to secure leave from the Court to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. In the present case, the prosecution is able to establish that vital documents relied on by the Enforcement Directorate to prove the offence of money laundering has been treated as an inadmissible evidence, merely on the ground that the statements taken from the bank computer has not been certified nor original was filed. Admittedly, the said document Ex.P3, Forensic Audit Report was subsequently certified by the bank officials and it was produced before the Trial Court. But the Trial Court has not taken into consideration and formed an opinion that the bank statements are wholly inadmissible, which resulted in an order of acquittal - there are no hesitation in forming an opinion that the petitioner in present case is entitled to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal. Consequently, leave is granted to the petitioner to file an Appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondents by judgment passed by the Principal Sessions at Chennai/Special Court under PMLA - Thus, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. - Honourable Mr. Justice S.M. Subramaniam And Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lers in the pretext of buying gold bullion and have received money in the guise of sale of gold jewellery, wherein most of the transactions were only on paper. (d) diverted the crime proceeds derived by them by the commission of Scheduled Offences. 5. They have caused wrongful loss to the Banks in Consortium, which is estimated to the tune of Rs. 824.15 Crores (Outstanding as of 31.12.2017) plus accrued interest from 01.01.2018 and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves, during the period between 2009 and 2017. 6. On completion of the investigation under PMLA, a prosecution complaint was filed, which was taken cognizance by the Special Court for PMLA/the Principal Sessions judge at Chennai, in C.C.No.13 of 2018. The prosecution examined 28 witnesses and marked 10 Exhibits to prove the case. None was examined on the side of the accused. After trial, the Special Court has passed judgement, acquitting all the accused. 7. The Enforcement Directorate filed Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondents/Accused by judgment dated 20.09.2023 in C.C. No. 13 of 2018. 8. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioner wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the provisional attachment order is also admitted by the Investigating Officer in her evidence. Considering the evidence of Investigating Officer and relying on the inadmissible evidences, the Trial Court acquitted the respondents 3 and 4. Therefore, the petition to leave deserves to be rejected. 12. Pertinently, the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others [2020 7 SCC 1] considered Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows, 51. On an application of the aforesaid maxims to the present case, it is clear that though Section 65-B(4) is mandatory, yet, on the facts of this case, the respondents, having done everything possible to obtain the necessary certificate, which was to be given by a third party over whom the respondents had no control, must be relieved of the mandatory obligation contained in the said sub-section. 52. We may hasten to add that Section 65-B does not speak of the stage at which such certificate must be furnished to the Court. In Anvar P.V. [Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also pertinent to mention here that the present case is a case of a very different nature where the criminal proceeding were initiated on the basis of the direction of the Apex Court. The Apex Court monitored the investigation. It is not an ordinary criminal offence. 239. The present case is a case pertaining to economic offence and it has been held time and again that economic offence constitute a separate class and required to be handled with a different approach. 242. The Court is fully conscious of the fact that rules of appreciation of evidence and trial remains the same in all cases, be it an economic offence or other offences. However, the courts cannot have a static approach and must have dynamic approach in consonance with the facts alleged in a particular case. 14. With reference to the above principles, this Court could form an opinion that certain vital issues decided by the Special Court under PMLA ought to be considered. PMLA is a special enactment and Code in itself. Therefore, the procedures to be adopted under PMLA are not akin to that of the procedures to be followed under the other penal laws. Certain unique features under PMLA are objected to protect the econom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
