SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Kar) 2036

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
John Michael Cunha, J.
Shri Katta Subramaniam Naidu S/O Late Srinivasulu Naidu – Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director Directorate Of Enforecemnet Government Of India Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue III – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.5698, 6060 of 2019, 5556, 5329, 5030 of 2016, Writ Petition No.57604 of 2015 (Gm-Res), Criminal Petition No.2540, 7836, 7837 of 2016, Writ Petition No.52348 of 2015 (Gm-Ml/Pb) Writ Petition No.24502 of 2017(Gm-Res)
Decided On : 14-12-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Kiran S Javali, Advocate A/W Sri. Chandrashekara.K., Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. M.B. Nargund, Asg A/W Sri. P Prasanna Kumar, Spl.Pp

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Article 20 and 20(1) – Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 467,465,471 r/w 120-B - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 227 and 173 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3, 4 and 8(5) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7,8,12,13(1)(d),(2) - Confiscation of all attached properties - Compensation - Complaint was filed by Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement under section 45(1) of PML Act, 2002 against petitioner and 23 other accused persons seeking their prosecution under sections 3 and 4 of PML Act and also for confiscation of all attached properties (provisionally attached vide Provisional Attachment Order and Provisional Attachment Order under section 8(5) of PML Act - This was registered in Spl.C.C.- In the said complaint, it was alleged that report filed by Lokayuktha under section 173 of Cr.P.C. disclosed that petitioner directly as well as indirectly indulged, knowingly assisted, knowingly was a party and was actually involved in process and activities connected with proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property - Whether a scheduled offence has been committed or not – Held, as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Biswanath Bhattacharya V. Union of India and Others referred above, penalty is a generic term which includes fine and penalty - Fine is pecuniary penalty; forfeiture is a penalty by which one loses his right and interest over the property; whereas, confiscation is condemnation of property to public treasury - It is not considered as punishment either under scheme of PML Act or under Section 8(5) of the Act - Keeping in view object of PML Act, a speedy mechanism has been provided under the PML Act for recovery and confiscation of property laundered by offenders - No legal right having been accrued in favor of petitioners to hold on or to enjoy proceeds of crime, source of which cannot be explained by them, argument of learned counsel for petitioners that attachment proceedings initiated against them are unjust and bad in law is without any substance - In the light of discussion, none of contentions urged by petitioners merit acceptance - As a result, petitions being devoid of legal basis are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.

ORDER :

In this batch of petitions, petitioners have questioned the correctness and legality of the proceedings initiated against them under sections 3, 4 and 8(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘PML Act’).

2. The common grievance of the petitioners is that they are sought to be prosecuted and the properties belonging to them are sought to be attached / confiscated on the basis of amended law which came into force on 01.06.2009 in respect of the offences which are alleged to have been committed prior to 01.06.2009.

3. For better understanding of the controversy raised in the petitions, narration of the basic facts involved in each case may be necessary. They are recapitulated hereunder:

Criminal Petition No.5698 of 2019

The petitioner in this case was a Minister in the Government of Karnataka at the relevant time. FIR was registered against him in Crime No.57/2010 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “PC Act”) and sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 r/w. 120B of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner (accused No.1) and 8 other accused persons in charge sheet No.4/2011 dated 07.07.2011 by the Karnataka Lokayuktha. The offences alleged against the petitioner were punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2)of PC Act and sections 465, 471 r/w. 120-B of IPC. He was summoned before the XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru City, in Spl.C.C.No.135/2011. The application filed by him under section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge having been rejected, the petitioner challenged the said order before this court in Criminal Revision Petition No.432/2013. By order dated 03.11.2016, the revision petition was allowed and the order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the court below in Spl.C.C.No.135/2011 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under section 227 Cr.P.C. was set-aside and the petitioner (accused No.1) was discharged. In the same order, Criminal Petition No.2313/2016 filed by accused No.9 Sri.M.Gopi was allowed and the proceedings pending against him in Spl.C.C.No.135/2011 were quashed. The FIR registered against accused No.3 S.V.Srinivas and the charge sheet filed against him were also quashed by orders of this Court dated 10.03.2016 in Criminal Petition No.5102/2015.

4. That being the facts, a complaint (ECIR.No.07/BZ/2011) was filed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement under section 45(1) of the PML Act, 2002 on 24.03.2014 against the petitioner and 23 other accused persons seeking their prosecution under sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act and also for confiscation of all the attached properties (provisionally attached vide Provisional Attachment Order No.07/2012 dated 25.09.2012 and Provisional Attachment Order No.01/2014 dated 24.01.2014) under section 8(5) of PML Act. This was registered in Spl.C.C.No.124/2014. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the report filed by the Lokayuktha under section 173 of Cr.P.C. (Charge sheet No.04/2011 dated 07.07.2011) disclosed that the petitioner directly as well as indirectly indulged, knowingly assisted, knowingly was a party and was actually involved in process and activities connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property. The amounts involved in the offence of money laundering were quantified as:-

    i. Rs.5,09,27,700/-[as mentioned at para 6(x)] directly withdrawn from ITACA account and

ii. Rs.21,95,80,000/-[as mentioned at para 6(x)] obtained through Mr. K.S. Jagadish (his son), withdrawn from ITACA account.

Total amount : Rs.27,05,07,700/-

Crl.P.No.6060/2019

5. Accused Nos.6 to 11 and 19 to 21 in Spl.C.C.No.124/2014 are the petitioners in this case. Accused No.6 is the wife of accused No.1. Accused No.7 is the sister of accused No.2 a

                                                          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                                          1
                                                          2
                                                          3
                                                          4
                                                          5
                                                          6
                                                          7
                                                          8
                                                          9
                                                          10
                                                          11
                                                          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                                          supreme today icon
                                                          logo-black

                                                          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                                                          Please visit our Training & Support
                                                          Center or Contact Us for assistance

                                                          qr

                                                          Scan Me!

                                                          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                                          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                                          whatsapp-icon Back to top