IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
Eluri Prasad Rao, S/o. Late Sri Govindaiah Eluri - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Rep. by its Union Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Revenue Department & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 19038 of 2023
Decided On : 10-01-2025
(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 2(1)(u), 5(1), 8(1), 6(2) - Writ petition under Article 226 - Challenge to Provisional Attachment Order - Petitioner alleged to have misappropriated loan amounts under Kisan Credit Card scheme - Allegations of criminal conspiracy and money laundering - Court found that properties attached were acquired prior to the alleged offence and thus not derived from proceeds of crime - Order of attachment set aside for lack of jurisdiction and failure to follow due process. (Paras 1-70)
(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - Writ jurisdiction can be exercised despite availability of alternative remedy if the order lacks inherent jurisdiction or violates principles of natural justice. (Paras 15-30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a director of a company, challenged a Provisional Attachment Order under the PMLA, alleging that the order was passed without jurisdiction and that the properties attached were acquired before the alleged commission of the offence. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the properties were acquired prior to the alleged offence and thus could not be considered proceeds of crime. The attachment order was set aside for not following the required legal procedures. (Paras 64-70)
Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the writ petition, the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority, and whether the properties were derived from proceeds of crime. (Paras 24-28)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that properties acquired before the commission of an alleged offence cannot be attached under the PMLA, and the authority must follow due process in such matters. (Paras 64-66)
Result: Writ petition allowed; Provisional Attachment Order set aside.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Order dated 14.06.2023 in O.C.1890/2023 in PAO No.04/2022 dated 30.12.2022 in ECIR/HYZO/03/2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority/2nd respondent herein and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and without jurisdiction of PMLA, besides violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and quash the order dated 14.06.2023.
2. The petitioner herein is a Director of M/s. Sri Bhuvaneswari Agri Processing & Marketing Private Limited and also engaged in public service activities. The General Manager, Retail Banking Group, IDBI Bank Limited, Hyderabad Zonal office had initially filed 3 written complaints dated 07.01.2017 to the Superintendent of Police, Head of the Branch, CBI, Anti Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam. Later, filed another complaint dated 15.12.2017 to the Superintendent of Police, Head of the Branch, CBI, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad complaining about the large scale fraud in the Guntur Branch of IDBI bank in the matter of processing and sanctioning loans under Kisan Credit Card (KCC) Short Term Loans for construction of ponds/tanks to farmers of fish farming/pisciculture.
3. The allegations made in 4 complaints in substance are that the Assistant General Manager & Relationship Manager (RM) of IDBI Bank Limited, Guntur Branch, Andhra Pradesh along with other unknown bank officials entered into criminal conspiracy with 2 mediators i.e. Mr. Ganduri Mallikarjuna Rao and Mada Srinivasa Rao and had processed, sanctioned loans by way of Kisan Credit Cards/Short Term Loans to 105 borrowers in and around Guntur District, without considering the eligibility norms, without verifying documents, without conducting any proper pre-sanction and post-sanction inspections, proper visit, without obtaining proper loan documents and securities, and without ensuring the end use of the loan; that after the sanction of loans, the loan amounts were disbursed to the savings accounts of the beneficiaries and that the loan proceeds were then diverted from the accounts of beneficiaries to the accounts of the aggregators and were later misappropriated causing pecuniary loss to tune of Rs.27.82 crores to the bank.
4. Based on 3 complaints, 3 F.I.Rs were registered by the Superintendent of Police, Head of the Branch, CBI, Anti Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam against accused therein for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and single charge sheet dated 29.06.2018 wherein Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam alleging that there was common conspiracy to cheat IDBI Bank, as the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 of IPC are the offences under Indian Penal Code and offences under Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are schedule offences by virtue of Sections 2(1) & 2(1)(y) of PMLA Act, a case in Enforcement Case Information Report vide ECIR/HYZO/03/2017 was registered and investigation was initiated under PML Act, 2002, based on3 F.I.Rs dated 23.01.2017.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioner is shown as 6th defendant and M/s. Sri Bhuvaneswari Agri Processing & Marketing Private Limited is shown as 7th defendant in O.C.No.1890 of 2023, basing on the complaint given by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent Authority.
6. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Guntur and he is a Director of M/s. Sri Bhuvaneswari Agri Processing & Marketing Private Limited. The General Manager, IDBI Hyderabad Zonal Office gave complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad and the same was registered vide RC 07/(A)/2018 dated 22.03.2018 arraying the petitioner as Accused No.4 along with other persons for the offences puni
Properties acquired before the commission of an alleged offence cannot be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and due process must be followed in such proceedings.
Properties acquired prior to the commission of a predicate offence cannot be attached under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, as they do not constitute proceeds of crime.
The court upheld the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act before invoking writ jurisdiction, affirming that 'proceeds of crime' includes property in....
Properties purchased before the commission of the offence, cannot fall within the definition of “proceeds of crime” and cannot be attached or confiscated under the Act. Consequently, the attachment a....
The main legal principle established is that properties to be proceeded against under PMLA must be connected to the criminal activity, and ex facie illegal acts can be interfered with under Article 2....
Provisional Attachment Orders must have justified legal grounding, requiring explicit evidence of connections to alleged criminal activity, and prior judicial conclusions limit enforcement authority ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.