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

2025 Supreme(J&K) 18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J
Hilal Ahmad Mir S/o Sona Ul Lah Mir - Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement Dy. Director - Respondent
CRM(M) No. 484 of 2024 c/w CRM(M) No. 418 of 2024
Decided On : 03-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Tasaduq H. Khawaja, Advocate with Mr. Ab. Muizz, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Zuhaib Hussain, Advocate (Virtual Mode) with Mr. Faizan Ah. Ganie, Advocate.

The absence of 'proceeds of crime' negates the charge of money-laundering under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Headnote:

(A) Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 2(1)(p), 2(1)(u), 3, and 4 - Allegations of money-laundering against petitioners for obtaining a loan under false pretenses - Petitioners claimed to have developed a township but funds were directly transferred to landowners - Court found no evidence of 'proceeds of crime' as defined under the Act - The absence of possession of 'proceeds of crime' negates the charge of money-laundering. (Paras 10, 16, 17)

(B) Inherent Powers of High Court - The court emphasized the necessity of proving 'proceeds of crime' for establishing money-laundering - The court has the authority to quash proceedings that amount to abuse of process. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, as officials of a co-operative society, sought a loan for developing a township. Allegations arose regarding the legitimacy of the loan and the society's existence, leading to investigations and complaints under the PMLA. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not possess any 'proceeds of crime' and thus could not be charged with money-laundering. The complaints against them were quashed. (Paras 18)

Issues: Whether the petitioners engaged in money-laundering without possessing 'proceeds of crime' and whether the complaints were an abuse of process. (Paras 10, 17)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without 'proceeds of crime', the allegations of money-laundering cannot stand, and the inherent powers of the court allow for quashing of frivolous complaints. (Paras 10, 18)

Result: Complaints against the petitioners quashed.

JUDGMENT :

1. The issues involved in the instant petitions are akin and analogous to each other and are taken up hereunder for final disposal at this stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. Before proceeding to advert to the issues involved in the petition, the brief facts in context of issues involved are briefly detailed hereunder:

A. CRM(M) No. 484/2024.

(i) The petitioners herein are stated to have been working as Chairman and Secretary of a registered Co-operative Society, namely, River Jehlum Co-operative House Building Society (for short "the Society‟), which Society had proposed to develop a satellite township at Shivpora, Srinagar on a big plot of land that was identified by the Society for the said purpose and the said land was proposed to be purchased by the Society from its land owners for the development of the said township.

(ii) In furtherance of the aforesaid proposal, petitioner 1 herein claims to have approached the Jammu and Kashmir State Co-operative Bank (for short "the Bank‟) for grant of financial assistance by way of loan of Rs. 300 crores in favour of the Society for enabling it to acquire the identified land from its owners and its subsequent development for establishment of the satellite township. A detailed project report is claimed to have been prepared and submitted to the Bank for consideration of the case of the Society for grant of loan. It is stated that the petitioner also filed an application to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir for facilitating early consideration of the said loan case. The Bank after considering the financial viability of the project and financial interests of the Bank, is stated to have agreed to finance the project to the extent of Rs. 250 crores and subsequently in the first instance, the Bank released an amount of Rs. 223 crores as loan and directly transferred the same in the accounts of 18 land owners against the land in question measuring 257 Kanal and 18 Marlas covered under Khewat No. 53 in estate Shivpora and the land owners consequently are stated to have executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the petitioner 1 herein, in order to facilitate the transfer of the land in the name of the Society or else the ultimate purchasers of the plots of land therein the said township and the petitioner 1 herein, in turn is stated to have executed a perpetual lease deed qua the said land in favour of the Society through petitioner 2 herein, whereafter the leasehold rights are stated to have got mortgaged with the Bank and the land in question properly laid and marked in the relevant revenue records in favour of the Bank.

(iii) A frivolous investigation is stated to have been initiated in the matter by the Anti Corruption Bureau (for short "ACB‟) after registering FIR No. 4/2020 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 471 RPC read with Section 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, wherein the crux of the allegations against the petitioners and other co-accused therein the said FIR was that the petitioners herein had falsely claimed that the Society was a registered Society and succeeded in obtaining a loan of Rs. 250 crores from the Bank on false premise while alleging further that the loan had been sanctioned by the Bank illegally and fraudulently without following the Standard Operating Procedure, proper documentation, KYC norms and also without obtaining tangible security with further allegation that the whole exercise had been undertaken by the petitioners herein at the behest and instance of the then Chairman of the Bank, namely, Mohammad Shafi Dar (petitioner in connected CRM(M) No. 418/2024), who came to be the alleged kingpin in the whole affair, having compromised the interest of the Bank while sanctioning loan in favour of the Society.

(iv) The petitioners herein along with other accused persons therein the FIR (Supra) are stated to have been arrested in connection with the investigation therein the sai

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