9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal shall lie to this Court under Section 454 of Cr.P.C. The provision of the P.M.L.A Act does not provide for filing of any appeal against the order of confiscation of properties. Therefore, the appeal shall lie under section 454 of Cr.P.C to this Court as appeal against conviction lie to this Court. Confiscation of schedule A properties - HELD THAT:- The words such properties involved in money laundering or which has been used for commission of offence of money laundering would indicate that the disproportionate assets acquired by the accused which had been used for money laundering is subject to be confiscated to the Central Government under Sub Section (5) of Section 8 of the P.M.L.A Act. The scheduled offence alleged against late Sri. G.E. Veerabharappa has been tried in Spl. CC. No. 56/2015. Even though the C.B.I had alleged disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 2,91,70,984/-, the Court only directed confiscation of disproportionate asset to the extent of Rs. 1,72,40,951/- in favour of the Central Government. Therefore, the proceeds of crime is to the extent of Rs. 1,72,40,951/-. The said disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 1,72,40,951/- is alleged to have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) to set aside the impugned Order dated 24.06.2024 in Spl.C.No. 359/2019 passed by the XXXII Additional City Civil Sessions Judge Special Judge for CBI Cases (CCH-34) at Bangalore, so far as it relates to confiscation of the appellant's said properties which are shown at Sl.No. 2 of the Schedule A properties of the order/sentence viz., the land measuring 6 acres and 37 guntas located at Gunjur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk bearing Survey No.187/3 (28 guntas), Survey No.188/1 (3 acres and 20 guntas) and Survey No. 210/2 (2 acres and 29 guntas) and grant the custody of the same in favour of the appellant, in the interest of Justice. (ii) to pass any other order(s) as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper. 2. Brief facts of the case is as under; (i) The appellant is a company carrying on the business into real estate and hospitality activities. (ii) The appellant had purchased the properties bearing Sy. No. 187/3 measuring 28 guntas, Sy. No. 188/1 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas and Sy. No. 210/2 measuring 2 acres 29 guntas, totally measuring about 6 acres 37 guntas situated at Gunjur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk (for short hereinafter referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for the C.B.I cases in Special CC No. 56/2015 by order dated 14.02.2023 where he was found guilty of acquiring the disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 1,72,40,951/-. (viii) Since the properties belonging to late Sri. G.E. Veerabharappa including the properties of the appellant were subject matter of the criminal proceedings where the C.B.I had seized the original documents of the said properties and had submitted to the Hon'ble Court along with the charge sheet and as the respondent had attached the properties, late Sri. G.E. Veerabhadrappa was not able to comply with the terms and conditions of JDA of the said properties with the appellant herein. (ix) Further, as the conviction of late Sri. G.E. Veerabharappa in the aforesaid C.B.I case was for disproportionate asset to the extent of Rs. 1,72,40,951/- which was directed to be confiscated to the Government, late Sri. G.E. Veerabharappa invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India, had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court with a plea that, value of his 7 assets which are attached are valued at an amount of Rs. 1,72,40,951/- by the Hon'ble Special Court and is confiscated by the respondent, he sought for f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, withdrew the attachment of the said properties which was attached pursuant to the provisional attachment order No. POA No. 4/2018 and thus lifted the attachment. The same was sent by the E.D to the concerned Sub-Registrars. Thus, the properties of late Sri. G.E. Veerabharappa including the said properties of the appellant was without any encumbrance. (xv) As the documents of the properties were with the C.B.I, by letter dated 22.05.2023, late Sri. G.E. Veerabharappa requested the C.B.I to release all the original documents pertaining to the said properties. On receipt of the said letter, C.B.I informed that as the said original documents filed along with charge sheet in Special CC No. 56/2015, late Sri. G.E. Veerabhadrappa should seek for the return of the same from the Hon'ble Court. (xvi) Subsequent to withdrawal of attachment of the said properties by the respondent E.D, the entries showing the lien of the respondent over the said properties was also deleted. (xvii) Thereafter, late Sri. G.E. Veerabhadrappa approached the appellant stating that due to certain reasons, he is not in a position to continue with the JDR and hence, offer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the lien over the properties was lifted, legally the appellant purchased the said properties. The appellant is the owner of the said properties which were directed to be confiscated by the Special Court. The said order of confiscation of the appellant s properties is illegal and requires to be set-aside. The order of confiscation over the said properties of the appellant amounts to disposal of the properties as per Section 452 of Cr.P.C and hence, the appeal is maintainable. As the appellant is the owner of the said properties which were confiscated, the appellant has locus standi to prefer this appeal. As on the date of purchase of the said properties, the attachment was lifted and late Sri. G.E. Veerabharappa had right, title and possession over the said properties and accordingly, he had executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the procedure for trial has been provided under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short hereinafter referred to as P.M.L.A Act ). The properties of late Sri. G.E. Veerabharappa has been confiscate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Court. Section 46 of P.M.L.A Act, reads thus; 46. Application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to proceedings before Special Court. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (including the provisions as to bails or bonds), shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the purposes of the said provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Sessions and the persons conducting the prosecution before the Special Court, shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor: Provided that the Central Government may also appoint for any case or class or group of cases a Special Public Prosecutor. (2) XXXXXXX. (3) XXXXXXX. 10. Considering the above said provision, except as otherwise provided in the P.M.L.A Act, the provision of Cr.P.C., are made applicable to the proceedings before the Special Court. The order of confiscation of the properties of the accused by the Special Court amounts to disposal of properties under section 452 of Cr.P.C. Against the order of said disposal of the properties passed under section 452 of Cr.P.C, the appeal shall lie to this Court under Section 454 of Cr.P.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said writ petition. The Hon ble Apex Court has passed the order dated 21.04.2023 in the said writ petition. The said order reads thus; Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents. 2. The main relief claimed in this petition is to permit the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of a sum of Rs. 1,72,40,951/- in lieu of and in replacement of the proposed confiscation. 3. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner has been convicted by the Court of the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru, vide order dated 14.02.2023 in Special CC. No. 56/2015, for an offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Though, the CBI had alleged disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 2,91,70,984/-, however, the Court only directed confiscation of disproportionate assets to the extent Rs. 1,72,40,951/- in favour of the Central Government. 4. In pursuance to the registration of case by CBI, the Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore Zonal Office also regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case at hands, we also direct that in case the petitioner furnishes a fixed deposit receipt of a nationalized bank for a sum of Rs. 1,72 40,951/- with a lien in favour of the CBI and the enforcement directorate within a period of two weeks from today, the attachment of all the properties vide provisional attachment order dated 29.06.2018 by the enforcement directorate shall be lifted. The said fixed deposit receipt would be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings against the petitioner in pending CBI matters as well as PMLA mattes. 10. We further make it clear that this order is only by way of interim arrangement and shall be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings and is without prejudice to the contention of the respective parties. 11. The pending proceedings shall be decided strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits without in any way influenced by the present interim arrangements. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the matter stands finally disposed of. 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 13. Pursuant to the said order of the Hon ble Apex Court, late Sri. G.E. Veerabharappa obtained Fixed Deposit receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A , valuing a sum of Rs. 50,16,961/-. 15. There was no attachment subsisting as on the date of sale deed ie., 07.06.2023 executed by late Sri. G.E. Veerabharappa in favour of the appellant. The appellant became the owner of the said properties under the sale deed dated 07.06.2023. The learned Special Judge has not issued any notice to the appellant as it had title over item No. 2 of Schedule A prior to confiscating the said properties. Sub Section (3) of Section 8 of the P.M.L.A Act, which provides for confiscation of properties reads as under; 8. Adjudication.- (1) xxxxxx (2) xxxxx (3) Where the Adjudicating Authority decides under sub-section (2) that any properties is involved in money-laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the attachment of the properties made under sub-section (1) of section 5 or retention of properties or record seized or frozen under section 17 or section 18 and record a finding to that effect, whereupon such attachment or retention or freezing of the seized or frozen properties or record shall- (a) continue during [investigation for a period not exceeding three hundred and sixty-five days or the pendency of the proceedings relating to any of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
