2024 Supreme(Mad) 2806
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, M. JOTHIRAMAN, JJ.
G. Venkatanarayanan and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement Chennai - Respondent
Crl.OP. No.9663 of 2024 and Crl.MP. No.9102 of 2023
Decided On : 27-11-2024
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Economic Offences
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.309, S.482
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT: S.3, S.4, S.45, S.50
Headnote
(B) Independent Offences - Offence of money-laundering is distinct from the scheduled offence and can proceed based on completion of the investigation into proceeds of crime without relación to the predicate offence. (Paras 9.1 and 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, involved in a predicate offence of corruption leading to a money laundering investigation, challenged a trial court's dismissal of their plea to stay PMLA proceedings pending the outcome of their appeal in the predicate case.
Findings of Court:
The High Court affirmed that PMLA trials can and should progress irrespective of the status of predicate offence claims, as established in multiple referenced judgments, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary’s case.
Issues: The main issues included the independence of PMLA trials from predicate offence results and the proper jurisdiction under the PMLA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once a complaint under PMLA is filed, it creates an independent judicial process that does not rely on the predicate offence's outcome, reinforcing that the complexities of economic offences necessitate separate mechanisms.
Result: Criminal Original Petition dismissed.
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.A. Sujay Prasanna.
For the Respondent: Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India Assisted by Mr. P. Sidharthan, Special Public Prosecutor.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of procedural history and predicate offence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contention on legal proceedings and the issues raised. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. details of income sources and allegations of corruption. (Para 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 4. judicial findings and the confirmation of the trial order. (Para 11 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. legal provisions and clarifications regarding pmla. (Para 12 , 14) |
ORDER :
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Under assail is the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.9102 of 2023 in Spl CC No.2 of 2023.
2. The petitioners/accuseds are A1 and A2, both in the predicate offence and in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred as PMLA] cases. An FIR was registered by CBI on 01.05.2013 under Section 120 (B) r/w 13(2), 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In view of registration of scheduled offence, the Enforcement Directorate recorded ECIR and launched investigation under the provisions of PMLA. After completing the investigation, a complaint under Section 4 5(1) r/w Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA was registered before the competent Court of Law. Statements of the accuseds and other persons were recorded under Section 50 (2) (3) of PMLA. Provisional attachment was made by invoking Section 5(1) of PMLA . The provisional attachment order was not confirmed by the Authority. The proceedings before the adjudicating authority was closed, in view of the orders passed by this Court and based on the undertaking given by the accused that they will not alienate the properties provisionally attached under Section 5(1) of PMLA.
3. At that point of time, the petitioners preferred a petition under Section 3 09 of Cr.PC to stay all further proceedings in Spl CC No.2 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for CBI cases, Chennai. The Trial Court considered the issues raised between the parties and dismissed the petition which resulted in filing of the present Criminal Original Petition before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC.
4. The “proceeds of crime” with reference to Section 2(1) (U) of PMLA are identifiable in the complaint registered by the Enforcement Directorate and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder :-
PMLA: BRIEF SUMMARY OF RESULT OF INVESTIGATION CARRIED UNDER
10.1 Shri G Venkatnarayanan was a central government employee and as per CCS (Conduct) Rule, every government employee is required to file Immovable Property Returns (IPR) and also the intimation to / permission is required to be obtained from the concerned department. As Shri G Venkatnarayanan, despite undertaking to produce, he did not submit the said intimation letter to the department for acquiring the immovable properties as listed above. Hence, in response to the summons dated 23.05.2022, his statement dated 27.05.2022 was recorded wherein he, interalia, stated that earlier he had been convicted by the Hon'ble Special CBI Court in CC No. 8/2014, later Hon'ble Madras High Court acquitted him in Crl.A 161/2016 in the graft case, but the Disproportionate Asset case in CC No. 22/2014 is in final stage before the Hon'ble Special CBI Court, that based on the orders on Hon'ble Madras High Court, he had been reinstated in the department and currently working in Chennai Office in Management System Certification Department. As regards the intimation to the department of acquiring assets, stated that he informed his department about the details of the property held in his and wife's name in the department's online portal and produced a copy thereof.
10.2 It is pertinent to mention that the Shri G Venkatnarayanan produced a copy of the online submission of the IPR for the properties purchased by him. It is observed from the said copy submitted by him that on-line submission was done in the year 2021 which shows that he had not filed IPR when the said properties were purchased and hence, he, as an after thought, filed in 2021.
10.3 Smt K Suja in her statement dated 27.05.2022 interalia stated th