Section 24 of the Act places the burden of proof on a person charged with an offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act. Resultantly, either an Authority or a Court shall presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering until the contrary is proved-The burden of proof by discharging the presumption lies upon the persons charged. Hence, investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the respondent are totally distinct and different. Sub Section 1 of Section 44(1) of the Act has been amended by way of an insertion through The Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 No.23 of 2019 dated 01.08.2019.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. SUNDRESH, J.

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.56 of 2018 pending on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and quash the same.

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the Private Limited Company and the Managing Director respectively, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.56 of 2018 pending on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

2. Heard Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first petitioner and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.P.R.Raman, learned counsel, for Mr.C.Seethapathy, learned counsel appearing for the second petitioner and Mr.G.Rajagopal, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Ms. G.Hema, SCGSC, for the respondent and perused the records including the written arguments filed.

3. Before venturing into the respective contentions, let us place on record the requisite bare facts.

3.1. M/s Hindustan Teleprinters Limited, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032, was a company incorporated way back in the year 1960 as a Public Sector Undertaking. Needless to mention 100% share capital was owned by the Government of India. The company disinvested 74% of the shares in favour of a private company by name M/s Himachal Futuristic Communications Limited (HFCL). Accordingly, 26% of the remaining shares continues to be with the Government of India.

3.2. The Company entered into a Working Capital Consortium Agreement on 22nd April, 2000 with the State Bank of India('SBI') as a lead bank. The agreement was secured by deposit of title deeds creating an equitable mortgage. The land measuring 11.021 acres situated in Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, was transferred in favour of M/s Hindustan Teleprinters Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the HTL”). In the year 2002, the company became NPA. Accordingly, on 07.03.2007, the lands were brought for sale by the SBI Asset Sale Committee. Though a successful bidder quoted a sum of Rs.298 crores, ultimately, the auction was withdrawn. Further proceedings were initiated under Rules 8(5) and 8(8) of the SARFAESI Rules, 2002. However, there were no bidders.

3.3. Thereafter, a decision was made by the State Bank of India and the consortium lenders to explore the possibility of the private treaty. The first petitioner made an offer to Rs.272 crores mortgaging the property in question along with the other assets. A sum of Rs.2 crores was paid through the Service Agreement dated 18.06.2013 executed by the HTL and the petitioners for the purpose of resurvey the land area and to settle the labourers. Though a request was also made on 12.06.2013 to pay the remaining 90% of the sale consideration on or before 22.06.2013 itself, the payment was made on 19.06.2013 and Sale Certificate was issued. Thereafter, the stamp duty was also paid on the guideline value.

3.4. The Central Bureau of Investigation(“CBI”) has registered a complaint for the offences under Sections 120(B) and 420 IPC and 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act in RC 50(A)/2016 against the SBI Manager, Chief Manager of SBI, Manager of HTL and the petitioners. Based on the said First Information Report filed by the CBI., the Enforcement Directorate has registered a case on 06.01.2017 and proceeded with the investigation thereafter under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

3.5. Seeking an order to quash the First Information Report, the petitioners have filed Crl.O.P.No.21905 of 2017. As the petitioner could not get any favourable orders in their challenge to the complaint registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, a Final Report was filed before the jurisdictional Court on 29.04.2019. During the pendency of the proceeding before the Court qua the complaint of the respondent, the final report filed by Central