Possession of properties linked to proceeds of crime creates a presumption of money-laundering, placing the burden of proof on the accused to establish the legitimacy of such assets.

ORDER :

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the case in C.C. No. 02 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Special Court for CBI cases, Madurai and to quash the same in respect of the petitioner/Accused No. 6.

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A6 in C.C. No. 02 of 2022, now pending before the II Additional District Court/Special Court for CBI Cases, Madurai, seeking to call for the records relating to the said Calender Case and quash the same, insofar as this petitioner /A6 is concerned.

2. In the petition, it had been stated that the respondent/Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Madurai had registered a case in File No. ECIR/MDSZO/02/2017 on 03.03.2017 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 3 of Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’) based on FIR in RC/MA1/2016/A/0043 on the file of CBI (ACB), Chennai, against A1/husband of this petitioner/A6 and others.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that this petitioner had assisted A1 by giving her consent to be a partner in a unregistered partnership firm M/s. Hill Island Resorts which was used for acquisition of proceeds of crime. It is the further allegation that this petitioner had not brought in any capital, but had only lent her name for purchasing immovable properties by using part of the proceeds of crime illegally made by A1. It had been stated that this petitioner had thereafter, projected the same as untainted by transferring the properties in favour of her daughter, K.P. Sindhu Bairavi. It is thus stated that this petitioner had assisted A1 in acquiring assets connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting the same as untainted property and therefore, had committed offence of money-laundering as defined under Section 3 of PMLA and punishable under Section 4 of PMLA.

4. It had been further stated that the respondent had conducted an investigation, recorded statements, collected documents and filed a charge sheet against this petitioner and 9 others on 12.01.2022 for offence punishable under Section 3 of PMLA. This charge sheet was taken cognizance by the II Additional District Court, Special Court for CBI cases, Madurai as C.C. No. 2 of 2022.

5. In the grounds seeking to quash the Calendar Case so far as this petitioner is concerned, it had been stated that the case against her son and daughter had been quashed by this Court in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 7829 of 2022 by order dated 11.08.2022. It had been stated that this petitioner is also on the same footing as her son and daughter and therefore, the case against her must also be quashed. It had been further stated that the respondent had produced the Partnership Deed as Document No. 186 and according to the said document, the partners of M/s. Hill Island Resorts are A4 and A3. The document relied on by the respondent as Document No. 8 which relates to M/s. Hill Island Homes, is a forged document and relates to different entity and not at all connected to this case. It had also been stated that loans which had been issued to six individuals, had been issued only after examining their financial status. It was not issued to M/s. Hill Island Resorts.

6. With respect to the properties in the name of the petitioner, it had been stated that there are 5 properties which have been categorised as item Nos.14, 15, 16 and 17 which had been purchased in the years 2013 and 2014 and item No. 22 which had been purchased in the year 2019. It had been contended that the offence in C.C. No. 8 of 2018 was said to have been committed in the year 2015 and the FIR was registered in the year 2016. It had therefore been stated that the properties in item Nos.14, 15, 16 and 17 are not connected with the case in C.C. No. 8 of 2018. It had been stated that the property in item No. 22 had been purchased after completion of investigation and therefor