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) 4235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R.M.T. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
R. Subramanian - Appellants
Versus
The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement - Respondents
Crl. R.C. No. 630 of 2018, Crl. M.P. Nos. 7433 and 7434 of 2018
Decided On : 10-10-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P. Kumaresan for M. Kaviraj.
For the Respondents: G. Rajagopal, Additional Solicitor General assisted by G. Hema, Special Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 43(1) - Challenging the Order - Petitioner/second accused challenging the order in taking cognizance of the offence in C.C - Challenging the said order of cognizance - Petitioner herein/second accused has preferred this criminal revision case before this Court - Respondent herein/complainant complainant, who is a public servant, is authorized to file this complaint - Case of the respondent herein/complainant is that the Economic Offence Wing, Chennai, had registered a criminal case for the offences committed under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC r/w. Section 5 of TNPID Act against the revision petitioner for non-refund of deposit money and interest to the depositors by Financial Services Limited wherein, revision petitioner was the Managing Director. He was arrested by the Economic Offences Wing Chennai, on 19.09.2015. The case is under final stage of investigation by Economic Offences Wing – Held, All the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner with regard to retrospective operations of the Act in respect of Section 420 of IPC and competency for filing the complaint before the designated Court and seeking special leave and liberty for further investigation and to file supplementary complaint after further investigation would not vitiate the cognizance as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and for the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the cognizance taken by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, designated Court under PML Act, Chennai. Since, the challenge is made as to the order of attachment of property standing in the name of wife and others, its probate value can be gone into only at the time of trial and accordingly, the said contention also stands rejected - Petitions are dismissed.

ORDER :

R.M.T. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/second accused challenging the order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, Special Court constituted under Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as "PML Act"] in taking cognizance of the offence in C.C. No. 4 of 2018 in ECIR No. CEZO/08/2014.

2. By the adjudication order dated 20.04.2018, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Special Court designated for trying the offence of PML Act, Chennai, has taken cognizance of the offence in ECIR/CEZO/08/2014 and also taken the case as C.C. No. 4 of 2018 and adjourned the matter to 23.04.2018 and on that date, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, ordered for issuance of summons to A.3 to A.7, since A.2 was already remanded to judicial custody. Challenging the said order of cognizance taken by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, the petitioner herein/second accused has preferred this criminal revision case before this Court.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the above C.C. No. 4 of 2018 are hereunder:-

[i] The first accused is M/s. Subhiksha Trading Services Limited in which, the revision petitioner namely, R. Subramanian is the Managing Director and arrayed as second accused and accused Nos. 3 to 5 are alleged to be the Directors of M/s. Triad Trading Services Private Limited and accused Nos. 6 and 7 are the Directors of M/s. Custodial Services India Private Limited.

[ii] The respondent herein/complainant is the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai. The complainant, who is a public servant, is authorized to file this complaint under Section 45(1) of the PML Act. The case of the respondent herein/complainant is that the Economic Offence Wing, Chennai, had registered a criminal case in FIR No. 05/2013 dated 21.10.2013 for the offences committed under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC r/w. Section 5 of TNPID Act against the revision petitioner for non-refund of deposit money and interest approximately around Rs. 150 Crores to the depositors by M/s. Vishwapriya Financial Services Limited wherein, the revision petitioner was the Managing Director. He was arrested by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Chennai, on 19.09.2015. The case is under final stage of investigation by Economic Offences Wing, Chennai.

[iii] In addition to the above EOW case, the Central Bureau of Investigation, BS & FS, Bangalore, has registered an FIR in RCA (E)/2013 on 26.07.2013 for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 120-B r/w. 420 IPC 1860 and Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for Bank Fraud. After due investigation, the CBI has filed Charge Sheet No. 9635/2014 dated 13.08.2014 which has been taken on file in the above said calendar case.

[iv] As per the Charge Sheet filed by the CBI, since the offence under Section 420 of IPC is a scheduled offence by virtue of Section 2(1)(x) & (y) of the PML Act, and as there was a prima facie case for offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PML Act, the Directorate of Enforcement, recorded an Enforcement Case Information Report No. 8/2014 dated 26.09.2014 against the revision petitioner herein and others and initiated investigations under PML Act, and arrested the revision petitioner herein. In the statement recorded under Section 50(2) & (3) of PML Act, in the presence of jail authorities, the revision petitioner has stated about the various loan facilities availed by him from various banks for establishing Subhiksha Chain of Stores and ECIR details etc. However, he has not revealed the whereabouts of the proceeds of crime which involved in money laundering.

[v] The proceeds of crime involved as per the CBI Charge Sheet is Rs. 77 Crores and the Directorate of Enforcement has attached the proceeds of crime for the value of only Rs. 9.47 Crores so far. The investigation under PML Act revealed











































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