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

2019 Supreme(Mad) 2365

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.M. SUNDRESH, RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, JJ.
M/s. VGN Developers P Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, D. Pratish, Chennai & Another - Petitioners
Versus
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, (The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002), Chennai - Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 9796 of 2019 & Crl.M.P. No. 5129 of 2019
Decided On : 04-10-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mukul Rohatgi, P.S. Raman, Sr. Counsel, C. Seethapathy, Advocate
For the Respondent: G. Rajagopal, Addl. Solicitor General Asst. by M/s. G. Hema, SCGSC

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, provides for an independent offence of money laundering, with a wide scope and distinct procedure for investigation and prosecution.

Headnote:

Money Laundering - Quashing of Proceedings - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 45(1) - 3, 4, 70 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the definition of 'proceeds of crime' under Section 2(u) of the Act, the burden of proof under Section 24, and the independent nature of the offence of money laundering under Section 3. The court also highlighted the wide scope of the Act and its distinct procedure for investigation and prosecution.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, a Private Limited Company and its Managing Director, sought to quash the proceedings under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, related to the sale of land by a Public Sector Undertaking and subsequent allegations of money laundering.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, is independent of the investigation into the scheduled offence. It held that the burden of proof lies with the accused and that the proceedings cannot be quashed at the current stage.

Issues: The issues revolved around the independence of the money laundering offence, the scope of 'proceeds of crime', and the burden of proof under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the independent nature of the offence of money laundering, the wide scope of the Act, and the distinct procedure for investigation and prosecution. It also highlighted the burden of proof placed on the accused.

Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, and the court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within nine months.

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 Centra

                  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