Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Assistant Directorate, Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue – Appellant
Versus
State, rep by The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-II, Central Crime Branch, Greater Chennai Police – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
1. Under assail is the Closure Report dated 14.11.2022 filed by the 1st respondent, accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Alandur by order dated 17.11.2022 made in Crime No.304 of 2012.
I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. Based on reliable information received on 12.03.2012 that crores of rupees of un-accounted money was available in the house bearing Door No.4, Old No.16, 25th Cross Street, Thillai Ganga Nagar, Nanganallur, Chennai – 600 061 belonging to Mr.Nagarajan, Son of Murugesan (Al in the predicate offence), house search was conducted and a sum of Rs.7,20,05,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores Twenty Lakhs and Five Thousand) was seized. It was stated by Mr.Nagarajan/Al that the amount was the sale proceeds of lottery tickets of the State of Kerala and Maharastra, which were printed in Calcutta and Faridabad along with his partners Mr.Martin and Mr.Murthy (A2 and A3 in the predicate offence). Based on the said search, an FIR was registered in Crime No.304 of 2012 against Mr.Nagarajan/A1, Mr.Martin/A2 and Mr.Murthy/A3 for offences punishable under Sections 2 94N, Section 4 20 and 120B of INDIAN PENAL CODE . ( Section 4 20 IPC is a scheduled offence under P
The court emphasized that the closure report on a severe financial crime must consider substantial evidence supporting prosecution, ensuring that economic offences are not dismissed without thorough ....
The court established that the offense of money laundering under PMLA cannot exist independently of a scheduled offense.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that allegations of corruption inherently establish proceeds of crime, allowing the ED to initiate investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, despite pr....
The investigation under PMLA is independent of the ultimate result of the Predicate/Scheduled Offence and continues independently.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the PMLA is an independent sui generis Act, and the complainant is required to prove the case independently, without presuming the derivation ....
Money laundering – In cases of PMLA, Court cannot proceed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities – Allegation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in Court.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings are independent of the predicate offence and must proceed without delay, reflecting the urgency in addressing economic crimes.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings cannot survive if the predicate offences linked to them are closed by the court, indicating the non-existence of 'proceeds of crime'.
The trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is independent of any pending trial for the predicate offence, as affirmed by the court.
The judgment emphasized the importance of providing reasoning in judicial orders and the impact of such orders on the investigating agency and accused persons.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
