R. NATARAJ
C. Devaraju – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has challenged the Order dtd. 15/4/2021 passed by the XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases in Spl.CC. No.304/2018 by which an application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') was rejected.
2. The petitioner was a First Division Assistant at HOPCOMS, Lalbagh, Bengaluru. A raid was conducted by the Karnataka Lokayukta, Ramanagara, against the petitioner and a case in Crime No.9/2009 was registered against the petitioner under Ss. 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act'). During the search, the authorities of Lokayukta had recovered documents relating to the properties registered in the name of the petitioner following which a chargesheet was filed against him under Sec. 13(1)(e) and Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act. It was found that the petitioner possessed disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs.1, 19, 44, 944.00, which was 200.58 % more than his known source of income. The check period was 1/11/1981 to 2/12/2009. In view of the fact that the offence under the PC Act was a scheduled offence under the PML
Discharge from offence of money laundering – Once a person is discharged or acquitted from scheduled offence, very foundation gets knocked out and charge of Money Laundering will not survive as there....
Acquittal in scheduled offences leads to the termination of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The court established that jurisdiction to try offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act hinges on the public servant's service location during the relevant check period, not prior service.
The offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, which has nothing ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that if an accused is acquitted in a predicate offence, there can be no offence of money laundering against them, and the proceedings initiated ....
If a person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence, there can be no offence of money laundering against him.
At the stage of framing charges, the court must apply its judicial mind to the material placed on record and be satisfied that the commission of the offense by the accused was possible.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the PMLA is an independent sui generis Act, and the complainant is required to prove the case independently, without presuming the derivation ....
The court established that possession of proceeds of crime is sufficient for PMLA action, and the Act's provisions are independent and overriding over other laws.
Discharge denied in PMLA case as scheduled offences pending via protest petitions/remand; prima facie case from money trail suffices at discharge without mini-trial; beneficial ownership extends liab....
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.