MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.M. Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam, JJ.
Vijayraj Surana – Petitioner
versus
Assistant Director,
Enforcement Directorate – Respondent
W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.16016 to 16024 of 2024
Decided on 28.8.2024
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 44 – Companies Act, 2013 – Section 447 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Scheduled offence – ECIR – Quashing petition – Proceeds of crime is focal point for an ECIR, whereas scheduled offence is dealt with under the FIR – ECIR is born from FIR, but once ECIR is born, umbilical cord that connects ECIR with FIR losses its relevance and ECIR becomes an independent document in itself – FIR and ECIR become two different documents and both tend to take shape on its own, independent of each other – Quashing of FIR shall not warrant an automatic quashing of ECIR – Predicate offence under Section 447 of Companies Act, 2013, which is also a scheduled offence under PMLA still stands good and requires further investigation.(Paras 27, 28, 44, 45 and 46)
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.
ORDER (COMMON)
S.M. Subramaniam, J.—Under assail are the proceedings of the Enforcement Directorate in ECIR Nos.CEZO-I/05/2019 dated 27.12.2019, CEZO-I/37/2020-dated 25.09.2020 and CEZO-I/42/2020 dated 24.12.2020.
I. Factual Matrix:
2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, [hereinafter referred as ‘PMLA’] complaint are that they have obtained loans from IDBI Bank to the tune of Rs.1301.76 Crores and Rs.1495.76 Crores from the same IDBI Bank and from the SBI Bank, Rs.1188.56 Crores. The loan borrowed by the said companies have facilitated mis-appropriation, manipulation of books of accounts through fictitious accounts and conversion of property of SIL by way of No.(1) Capital advances to potentially related party, (2) Sales and purchase with potentially related properties (3) bilateral transactions with properties related amongst themselves.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner and the company for the purpose of routing of funds borrowed money from one Mr.Gowtham Raj Surana to the tune of Rs.33,09,80,860/- for Global Industries, Rs.14,53,95,350/- for Prince Enterprises and Rs.20,47,69,749/- for Supreme Corporation. Totally, Rs.68,11,45,959. Similarly, from Mr.Shantilal Surana, a total sum of Rs.62,65,19,112/- was borrowed from the above 3 companies, namely, for Global Industries, Prince Enterprises, and for Supreme Corporation. The similar transaction was done in the name of Mr.Vijayraj Surana to the tune of Rs.74,65,14,732 /- and in the name of Mr.Dinesh Chand Surana to the tune of Rs.80,99,23,739.
4. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, the properties acquired by M/s Karwalal and Company has been attached vide Provisional Attachment Order No.09/2022, dated 01.08.2022, as it been derived from proceeds of crime and confirmed by Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 27.01.2023 (O.C.No.1800/2022). The petitioner was also made as a defendant in the impugned proceedings in O.C.No.1887 of 2023 because the properties in possession of Mrs.Alka Surana, w/o. Mr.Vijayraj Surana (defendant No.7 in the OC No.1887 of 2023) and Mr.Mitesh Surana S/o. Mr.Vijayraj Surana (defendant 20 in the OC No.1887 of 2023) have been attached vide provisional Attachment order No.17/22 date 26.12.2022 on the reasonable belief that the same had been acquired out of the proceeds of crime generated out of the commission of offences by the company, wherein Mr.Vijayraj Surana was promoters, Managing Director of M/s.Surana Corporation Limited and Director in other firms. Against the said order of Adjudicating Authority, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal bearing No.6363/2023. With reference to the above allegations, the Enforcement Directorate formed an opinion that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA is present.
II. Contentions of the Petitioner:
5. The factual matrix as narrated by the petitioner would reveal that 3 companies, namely, M/s.Surana Industries Limited, M/s.Surana Power Limited, M/s.Surana Corporation Limited were incorporated and petitioner is a shareholder. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seized gold stock of 400.47 Kgs, (approximately INR 150 Crores, during the relevant point of time) at showroom of Surana Corporation Limited one of the group companies on 20.06.2012. CBI filed charge sheet on 03.08.2013 and registered FIR on 16.09.2013 to investigate the mode of import of the gold stock and retained the seized gold. Serious Fraud Investigation agency registered complaint under Section 212(6) of Companies Act against M/s.Surana Industries Limited and 14 Group Companies on 28.03.2019. In February 2020, CBI handed over 296 Kgs gold to SBI as per the order of NCLT, Chennai. However, missing of 104 kgs of Gold was not reported to NCLT, Chennai by liquidator or SBI or CBI till August 2020. The petitioner claims to be the whistle blower for missing of 104 kgs of gold. He provided information regarding missing of gold and at that point of time
FIR and ECIR become two different documents and both tend to take shape on its own, independent of each other.
A quashed FIR does not automatically invalidate an ECIR; the ECIR is independent and requires substantive grounds for quashing based on the merits of the predicate offence under PMLA.
The court established that the offense of money laundering under PMLA cannot exist independently of a scheduled offense.
Money laundering proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be sustained without a validly registered predicate offense; if the predicate offense is quashed, so are the related m....
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings cannot survive if the predicate offences linked to them are closed by the court, indicating the non-existence of 'proceeds of crime'.
Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not sustainable without a registered scheduled offence, as established by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.
Without a predicate offense, proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be sustained, as established by the Supreme Court.
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.