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

2018 Supreme(Mad) 3430

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Soodamani Dorai - Appellant
Vs.
Joint Director of Enforcement (PMLA) - Respondent
W.P. No. 8383 of 2013, 8384 of 2013; Miscellaneous Petition No. 1 of 2013, 1 of 2014
Decided On : 04-10-2018

Advocates Appeared:
S. Sathiaseelan, Adv., G. Rajagopalan, Adv., Rajnish Pathiyil, Adv.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 20, 226, 19, 368, 14 and 227 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 304B, 324, 193, 228, 409, 420, 427, 468, 471 and 477 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 173, 320 and 482 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 24, 26, 42, 44, 11, 22, 23, 17, 18, 58B, 60 and 24 - FEMA - Section 35 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Sections 5 and 13 - General Clauses Act - Section 6 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 113B - Representation of People Act - Section 33 - Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972 - Section 33 - Possession Of Attached Property - Issue of unexplained income and investment raised by respondents herein have not been accepted by income tax appellate authority ratifying explanation/reasons given by one of writ petitioners and same also attained finality by implementation of same - Hence respondents herein are duty bound to allow order of itat which was implemented by said finding of itat d bench cannot be found fault with or reversed by this court since it is not a forum to reopen issue which already attained finality - Held, Thus all those judgments referred by learned counsel for writ petitioners have no relevance with reference to grounds considered in present writ petitions - Accordingly this court has no hesitation in coming to conclusion that present writ petitions are not only premature and complex facts and circumstances now raised by writ petitioners cannot be adjudicated in view of fact that writ petitioners have not exhausted appeal remedies provided under statutes and not participated in administrative procedures contemplated establishing their innocence or otherwise before competent authorities - such administrative procedures contemplated cannot be construed as akin to that of criminal proceedings initiated under indian penal code - Writ Petitions Stand Dismissed.

JUDGMENT

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

Two writ petitions are filed for quashing the proceedings issued by the first respondent in respect of the provisional attachment order No.1 of 2013 in File No. ECIR No. 03/2012 AVB dated 12.4.2012 and the consequential notice issued by the third respondent in Original Complaint No.178 of 2013 dated 13.3.2013.

2. Wp No.8383 of 2013 is filed by Mrs. Soodamani Dorai, Wife of Rt.Rev.Dr.Manickam Dorai. The writ petitioner in WP No.8384 of 2013 is filed by Rt.Rev.Dr.Manickam Dorai, who is the husband of the writ petitioner Mrs. Soodamani Dorai in WP No.8384 of 2013. Thus, the first writ petition viz., WP No.8383 of 2013 was filed by the wife of the writ petitioner Rt.Rev.Dr.Manickam Dorai in the second writ petition viz., WP No.8384 of 2013.

3. The facts in nutshell to be considered in these writ petitions are that the writ petitioners are husband and wife. The writ petitioner in WP No.8384 of 2013 Rt.Rev.Dr.Manickam Dorai was holding the post of Bishop of CSI Diocese, Coimbatore from 2000 till 8.1.2012. The writ petitioner in WP No.8383 of 2013 Mrs. Soodamani Dorai was a retired Primary and Middle School Teacher. The writ petitioners have two children, namely, one Mrs. Mercy Angela Dorai, an Engineer working in abroad and Dr.Jeremy Bliss was doing Post Graduation in Medical Education at CMC, Vellore.

4. By this time, the second daughter would have completed her Post Graduation Course. Rt.Rev.Dr.Manickam Dorai was officiating as Bishop of CSI Diocese, Coimbatore, one Mr.E.Premkumar lodged a criminal complaint before the CBCID, Coimbatore as against Rt.Rev.Dr.Manickam Dorai for the alleged misuse of Bishopship of CSI Diocese, Coimbatore by helping his relatives etc., during the period between 2005 and 2008.

5. Based on the criminal complaint, the CBCID, Coimbatore registered an FIR in Crime No.1 of 2009 as against Rt.Rev.Dr.Manickam Dorai and thirty others for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 468, 471 and 477 of IPC and another FIR in Crime No.5 of 2010 was also registered based on the another complaint lodged by the very same E.Premkumar against Rt.Rev.Dr.Manickam Dorai by the CBCID, Coimbatore. In FIR No.1 of 2009, charge sheet was filed on 3.5.2011 and the same was taken cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in C.C.No.158 of 2011. As against the above charge sheet in FIR No.1 of 2009 and C.C.No.158 of 2011, a quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., was preferred in Crl.O.P.No.15098 of 2011 on the file of this Court and the said Criminal Original Petition was subsequently dismissed.

6. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings and charge sheet, the second respondent registered an Enforcement Case Information Report in ECIR No.3 of 2012 dated 12.4.2012 based on the above FIR No.1 of 2009 and the charge sheet stayed by this Court as against the one of the writ petitioners Rt.Rev.Dr.Manickam Dorai for the alleged commission of scheduled offences under Sections 120-B, 420 and 471 of IPC under the PMLA, 2002. Consequent upon the registration of above ECIR, the second respondent vide proceedings dated 14.2.2013 provisionally attached the properties which stand in the name of Mrs. Soodamani Dorai, one of the writ petitioners in Document No.2186 of 2009 dated 27.4.2009, without recording any reasons in writing whether the authority has any reason to believe for attaching the property and as if the provisionally attached property in the possession of Mrs. Soodamani Dorai was purchased out of the alleged proceeds of crime relating to scheduled offences. Thereafter, the third respondent registered an original complaint in O.C.No.178 of 2013 dated 27.2.2013 as against the writ petitioners and consequent upon the registration of the above complaint, issued the impugned show cause notice dated 13.3.2013.

7. It is contended that the property in Document No.2186 of 2009 attached b
































































































































































































































































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