Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 9840
Abhay S. Oka, J
Pavana Dibbur – Appellant
Versus
The Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2779 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Meenakshi Arora
For the Respondents: S.V. Raju
Properties acquired prior to alleged predicate crimes cannot be linked as proceeds of crime under the PMLA; a person can be charged for money laundering without being listed as an accused in the predicate offences.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 45(1) - Cognizance and quashing of complaint - The court upheld that allegations of the appellant's involvement in money laundering through conspiracy lacked foundation, as the properties were acquired before the alleged crimes, and no proceeds of crime were linked to them. The court affirmed that a person can still be prosecuted under the PMLA despite not being named in the predicate offence charges. (Paras 11-29)
Facts of the case:
The appellant acquired two properties, allegedly linked to money laundering, while being implicated in a complaint by the Directorate of Enforcement. The first property was purchased in 2013, prior to the alleged criminal activities. The second property was acquired in 2019 for Rs.2.47 crores, with contentions raised regarding its funding source.
Findings of Court:
The first property was deemed unrelated to any criminal proceeds due to its acquisition timing; the prosecution's claims regarding the second property’s funding remain open for trial.
Issues: Determining the applicability of PMLA in the absence of direct predicates, and whether properties acquired prior to crimes are tainted.
Ratio Decidendi: It is established that Section 3 of the PMLA necessitates the existence of scheduled offences and proceeds of crime, and that conspiracy charges alone do not warrant laundering claims without a predicate offence.
Result: Appeal allowed, and the complaint against the appellant quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case facts and background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellant. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis of money laundering provisions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. interpretation of the schedule and related offences. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. court's statutory interpretation principles. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. conclusions regarding the appellant's case. (Para 27) |
| 7. order quashing the complaint against the appellant. (Para 28 , 29) |
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
OVERVIEW
1.
The respondent–the Directorate of Enforcement (for
short, ‘ED’), filed a complaint under the second proviso to
Section 45 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002 (for short, ‘the PMLA’) before the Special Court for PMLA
Cases at Bengaluru. The appellant–Pavana Dibbur was
shown as accused no.6 in the said complaint. By the order
dated 17th March 2022, the Special Court took cognisance of
the said complaint. The appellant filed a petition before the
High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.PC’)
seeking the relief of quashing of the said complaint. By the
Criminal Appeal No.2779 of 2023
Page 1 of 31
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2023.11.29
17:22:54 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
impugned judgment and order dated 27th September 2022,
the petition for quashing the complaint has been dismissed.
2.
In the year 2011, Alliance Business School (for short,
‘ABS’) purchased a property bearing Khata no.37/22 at
Gollahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru for
the consideration of Rs.13.05 crores. The area of the said
property is approximately five acres. For the sake of
convenience, we are describing the said property as ‘the First
Property’. On 1st July 2013, the appellant purchased the first
property from ABS by a registered sale deed for a
consideration of Rs.13.5 crores. The accused no.1–Madhukar
Angur, purchased a property measuring 4 acres and 0.4
Guntas bearing survey nos.61, 62 and 63 at Karpur Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru. For the sake of
convenience, we are describing this property as ‘the Second
Property’. The appellant purchased the second property by a
registered sale deed on 29th June 2019 for a consideration of
Rs.2.47 crores from accused no.1–Madhukar Angur.
3.
For a period of five years, i.e. from 2010 to 2015, the
appellant’s husband–Dr Ayyappa Dore, was the Vice
Chancellor of the Alliance University. The appellant also
acted as the ViceChancellor of the Alliance University for a
brief period. On 11th November 2017, a First Information
Report (FIR) was registered on the complaint of the Registrar
of the Alliance University against accused no.1–Madhukar
Angur, alleging that he collected a sum of Rs.107 crores from
Criminal Appeal No.2779 of 2023
Page 2 of 31
the students by claiming himself as the Chancellor of the
Alliance University. The allegation was that he collected the
said amount between January 2017 and November 2017,
which was deposited in the account of Srivari Education
Services. Subsequently, crores of rupees were transferred to
the account of the accused no.1.
4.
An Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was
registered on 16th October 2020 by the ED against accused
nos.1, 2 and 3, namely Madhukar Angur, his wife Priyanka
Angur and Mr Ravikumar, Partner, Srivari Education Services
and other unknown accused alleging the commission of the
offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA.
The ECIR was based on four FIRs, the details of which are as
under:
Sl.
No.
FIR No.
Sections
in FIR
Chargesheet
Sections
under
which the
Chargesheet
was filed
1.
119 of 2016
(PS
Jayaprakash
Nagar)
376, 420
and 506
of IPC
BReport
filed/
Closure
Report filed
on 2nd
February
2017
Closure
Report
accepted
2.
730 of 2016
(PS
Madiwala)
1
