The registration of an FIR can trigger an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act if it discloses the commission of a scheduled offense under the Act, and the legality of property purchases and fixed deposits would be determined during trial.

JUDGMENT :

P.N. Prakash, J.

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records in C.C. No.12 of 2018 before the Principal District Court at Madurai (Special Court constituted under Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002), now pending on the file of the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai and quash the same.)

1. This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.12 of 2018 before the Principal District Court, Madurai, which is now pending on the file of the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai.

2. M.S. Granites (A.4) and Sri Aiswariya Rock Export (A.3) are into the business of granite mining. Shankaranarayanan (A.1) and Selvam (A.2) are the partners in Sri Aiswariya Rock Export (A.3). Shankaranarayanan is the Proprietor of M.S. Granites (A.4). They were given licence to mine in specified areas by the State Government. But, it is alleged that they started quarrying illegally in Government lands which were not allotted to them.

3. In this connection, three FIRs, viz., Keelakalavu P.S. Cr.Nos.187 and 196 of 2012 and Cr.No.12 of 2015 by the District Crime Branch, Madurai, were registered for the offences under Sections 447,379,406 and 420 IPC read with Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act and Sections 4(1)A, 4(2)A, 4(3) and 21(b)5 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. It is the case of the police that illegal quarrying was carried on by the accused from December 2009 to July 2012.

4. Since the case registered by the police disclosed the commission of a schedule offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, (for short “the PML Act”), the Enforcement Directorate registered a case in ECIR No.13 of 2015 and after completing the investigation, has filed a complaint in C.C. No.12 of 2018 in the Court of the Principal District Judge (Special Court for PML Act Cases), Madurai, for the offences under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PML Act against Shankaranarayanan (A.1), Selvam (A.2), Sri Aiswariya Rock Export (A.3) and M.S. Granites (A.4), for quashing which, this criminal original petition has been preferred.

5. Mr. Richardson Wilson, learned counsel representing M/s.P.Wilson Associates, learned counsel on record for the petitioners, submitted that the entire police investigation began pursuant to the directions of this Court in a public interest litigation, in which, various orders were passed by this Court, including the one appointing Mr. Sagayam, I.A.S. to conduct an enquiry into the allegations of illegal quarrying around Madurai area. He further submitted that when the report submitted by Mr. Sagayam, I.A.S. itself has not been disclosed or made public and when the said report is also being contested by the licencees, the foundation for the present prosecution under the PML Act is weak. We are unable to subscribe to this submission, because, the FIRs have been registered based on the complaints given by the Revenue officials and not merely based on the report of Mr. Sagayam, I.A.S. Further, the registration of an FIR can trigger an investigation under the PML Act, if the FIR discloses the commission of a schedule offence under the said Act. In fact, in this case, final report (charge sheet) has been filed in Cr.No.196 of 2012 on 19.08.2013 based on the materials collected by the police. Therefore, the report of Mr.Sagayam, I.A.S. can have no bearing on the present prosecution under the PML Act, especially in the light of explanation (i) to Section 44 of the PML Act.

6. Mr. Richardson Wilson further contended that 31 immovable properties have been mentioned in the complaint and that 18 properties were purchased by the accused even prior to the commission of the predicate offence and the remaining properties were purchased by raising loans; likewise, out of 37 fixed deposits mentioned in the complaint, 21 fixed deposits were