Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1256
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
Ms. Mohana @ Mohanammal – Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Director, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 25837 of 2023, Crl. M.P. No. 17922 of 2023, Crl. M.P. No. 11777 of 2024
Decided On : 21-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Adithya Varadarajan.
For the Respondent: Rajinish Pathiyil.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that under the PMLA, the burden of proof lies on the accused, and mere possession of proceeds of crime suffices for prosecution.
Headnote:
Criminal - Money Laundering - PMLA Sections 2(1)(u), 3, 24 - The court interpreted the definitions and provisions of the PMLA, emphasizing the burden of proof on the accused and the sufficiency of evidence for proceeding with charges.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, arguing that the definition of 'proceeds of crime' was not satisfied and that no crime was committed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were prima facie materials against the accused for framing charges under the PMLA, and that disputed facts should be resolved at trial, not in quash proceedings.
Issues: Whether the complaint under the PMLA could be quashed on the grounds that the definition of 'proceeds of crime' was not satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof lies on the accused under Section 24 of the PMLA, and that the presence of prima facie evidence warranted proceeding with the trial.
Result: The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed.
ORDER :
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to stay the proceedings in C.C. No. 41 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai (Special Court Constituted under Section 43(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) pending disposal of the above criminal original petition. To dispense with the personal appearance in C.C. No. 41 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai (Special Court Constituted under Section 43(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) pending disposal of the above criminal original petition. To quash the complaint in C.C. No. 41 of 2016 in ECIR/CEZO/1/2014/APS, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai (Special Court Constituted under Section 43(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002).
1. The criminal original petition on hand has been instituted under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the final report in C.C. No. 41 of 2016 in ECIR/CEZO/1/2014/APS, pending trial on the file of the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.
2. The core argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner would be that the petitioner has not involved in any crime. The definition of “Proceeds of crime” as defined under Section 2(1)(u) has not been satisfied. Therefore very initiation of action against the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred as “PMLA”] is untenable.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that, the proceeds of crime has not been established and thus filing a complaint under Section 44 of PMLA would not arise at all. Therefore, the final report filed is liable to be set aside. To substantiate the said ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraphs 51 and 52 in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 929. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the definition of “Proceeds of crime” under PMLA.
4. Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent would oppose by stating that the very same ground raised by the petitioner were considered by the Division Bench of this Court during the first round of litigation instituted in the criminal original petition in Crl. O.P. No. 11726 of 2017 seeking to quash C.C. No. 41 of 2016. This Court made the following observations:
“2. On intelligence, the Inspector of Police, Katpadi Police Station, conducted a search in the premises of Mohana @ Mohanambal (A2) at No. 34, Govindaraj Mudali Street, Tharapadavedu, Katpadi, on 25.05.2014 and seized around Rs.4 crores in cash, Fixed Deposit Receipts in the name of Nirmala (A3) and approximately 591 grams of gold and registered a case in Katpadi Police Station Crime No. 163 of 2014 under Section 102 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on 30.05.2014, Devibala (A4), wife of one Saravanan (A1) was arrested and the case was altered from Section 102 Cr.P.C. to Sections 120-B, 384, 420 IPC and Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. In the said altered case, the names of Saravanan (A1), Mohana @ Mohambal (A2) and Nirmala (A3) also figured. Accordingly, they were also arrested and were remanded in judicial custody.
4. On coming to know of this, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case in E.C.I.R/CEZO/1/2014/APS and took up the investigation.
5. After completing the investigation, the Enforcement Directorate has initiated a prosecution in C.C. No. 41 of 2016 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai (Special Court Constituted under Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [for brevity ?the PML Act?]), against Saravanan (A1), Mohana @ Mohambal (A2), Nirmala (A3), Devi Bala (A4), for the offences under Section 45(1) r/w 3 and 4 of the PML Act, for quashing which, Mohana @ Mohambal (A2), Nirmala (A3), Devibala (A4) are before this Court.
........
