ORDER

P.N. PRAKASH, J.

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.13 of 2018 before the Principal District Court, Madurai, which is now pending on the file of the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai.

2 Sindhu Granites, Sree Laxmi Granites (A.5) - mentioned as Sri Lakshmi Exports in the cause title of this petition and Sree Murugan Enterprises (A.4) are into the business of granite mining and they are controlled by Selvaraj (A.1), Shanthi Selvaraj (A.2) and Surya Prakash (A.3). They were given licence to mine in specified areas by the State Government. But, it is alleged that they started quarrying illegally in Government lands which were not allotted to them.

3 In this connection, three FIRs, viz., Cr. Nos. 162 of 2012, 396 of

2013 and 417 of 2013, were registered for the offences under Sections 447, 379, 406 and 420 IPC read with Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, Section 6 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 4 and other provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. It is the case of the police that illegal quarrying was carried on by the accused from 2006 onwards.

4 Since the case registered by the police disclosed the commission of a schedule offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, (for short “the PML Act”), the Enforcement Directorate registered a case in ECIR No.14 of 2015 on 31.12.2015 and after completing the investigation, has filed a complaint in C.C. No.13 of 2018 in the Court of the Principal District Judge (Special Court for PML Act Cases), Madurai, for the offences under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PML Act against Selvaraj (A.1), Shanthi Selvaraj (A.2), Surya Prakash (A.3), Sree Murugan Enterprises (A.4) and Sree Laxmi Granites (A.5), for quashing which, this criminal original petition has been preferred.

5 Mr. Richardson Wilson, learned counsel representing M/s.P.Wilson Associates, learned counsel on record for the petitioners, submitted that the entire police investigation began pursuant to the directions of this Court in a public interest litigation, in which, various orders were passed by this Court, including the one appointing Mr. Sagayam, I.A.S. to conduct an enquiry into the allegations of illegal quarrying around Madurai area. He further submitted that when the report submitted by Mr. Sagayam, I.A.S. itself has not been disclosed or made public and when the said report is also being contested by the licencees, the foundation for the present prosecution under the PML Act is weak. We are unable to subscribe to this submission, because, the FIRs have been registered based on the complaints given by the Revenue officials and not merely based on the report of Mr. Sagayam, I.A.S. Further, the registration of an FIR can trigger an investigation under the PML Act if the FIR discloses the commission of a schedule offence under the said Act. In fact, in this case, final report (charge sheet) has been filed in Cr.No.396 of 2013 and Cr.No.417 of 2013 based on the materials collected by the police. Therefore, the report of Mr. Sagayam, I.A.S. can have no bearing on the present prosecution under the PML Act, especially in the light of explanation (i) to Section 44 of the PML Act.

6 Mr. Richardson Wilson further contended that 45 properties have been mentioned in the complaint and that most of the properties were purchased by the accused even prior to the commission of the predicate offence and therefore, the prosecution under the PML Act cannot have legs to stand. This contention also deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that it is not the purchase of the properties that forms the criterion for a prosecution under the PML Act, but, the projection of the fruits of crime as untainted ones. Whether the properties were purchased with the proceeds of crime or otherwise is a question of fact which cannot be gone into in a petition