Money laundering proceedings can continue even if the predicate offence is quashed against one accused, as long as allegations and requisite material exist against others involved.

ORDER :

(K. LAKSHMAN, J.)

The present criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter ‘ BNSS ’) to quash the criminal proceedings in S.C. No. 3/2021 in ECIR/09/HZO/2011 pending on the file of learned Principal Special Judge for Trial of CBI-cum-Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 at Nampally, Hyderabad qua the Petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Mr. SVS Chowdary, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. D. Narendar Naik, learned standing counsel appearing for the Respondent.

FACTUAL MATRIX:-

3. Vide common order dated 10.08.2011 in W.P.Nos.794 of 2011 and 6604 of 2011 erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh noted that there were large scale financial misdeeds and corruption involving the distribution of State largesse. Allegations were made against the then Chief Minister and his son that they accepted money in the form of investments in their companies in exchange for allotment of government projects to various businessmen. Therefore, basing on the said allegations, the Court ordered a CBI inquiry.

4. The CBI registered a case bearing RC No. 19 (A) / 2011-CBI / Hyderabad dated 17.08.2011 (hereinafter ‘predicate offence’) under Section 120B read with Sections 420 , 409, and 477A of the IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( PC Act). Likewise, a case bearing ECIR/09/HZO/2011 was registered by the Respondent under the PMLA.

5. In the predicate offence, chargesheet dated 17.09.2013 was filed against 14 accused including the Petitioners herein. In the said chargesheet, Petitioner No. 1 was arraigned as Accused No. 13. Petitioner No. 2 (M/s Cornerstone Property Investment Pvt. Ltd.) was not made an accused. In brief, the allegations against Petitioner No. 1 were that he was a long-time friend and business associate of Mr.I. Shyam Prasad Reddy (Accused No. 3 in the chargesheet). 6. In furtherance of their association, it is alleged that, Petitioner No. 1 facilitated the payment of bribe by Mr. I. Shyam Prasad Reddy to Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy (Accused No. 1 in the chargesheet). The alleged modus operandi was that Mr. I. Shyam Prasad Reddy paid money through his company M/s Walden Properties Pvt. Ltd. to Petitioner No. 2 – company which is owned by Petitioner No. 1.

7. The details of the transactions as stated in the chargesheet are extracted below:

8. In the charge sheet, there is an allegation that after receiving an amount of Rs. 50 crores from Petitioner No. 1 through his company i.e. Petitioner No. 2 transferred the said amount in favour of three companies i.e. M/s Gilchrist Investments Pvt. Ltd., M/s Alpha Villas Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Alpha Avenues Pvt. Ltd. These three companies were allegedly owned by one Mr. Nimmagadda Prasad (not arraigned as an accused in the chargesheet). The details of the said payments as provided in the chargesheet are extracted below:

A. Payments made to M/s Gilchrist Investments Pvt. Ltd.

B. Payments made to M/s Alpha Villas Pvt. Ltd.

C. Payments made to M/s Alpha Avenues Pvt. Ltd.

9. After receiving Rs. 50 crores from the Petitioners, the chargesheet alleges th