THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4671 OF 2024

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him in ECIR/HYZO/36/2020, dated 15.12.2020 by the Enforcement Directorate. The said investigation was initiated on the basis of the case filed by the Economic Offences Wing (for short ‘EOW’), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, for the offences under Section 120-B read with 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

02. Heard Ms. Shraddha Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Anil Prasad Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-

Enforcement Directorate. Perused the record.

03. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the predicate offence which was investigated by the EOW, Bhopal was tried before the competent Court and acquitted by the said Court. Till date, no appeal was filed questioning the said acquittal. He further submits that in view of the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, once the predicate offence resulted in acquittal, the proceedings cannot go on, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Further, this Court in CRL.P.No.634 of 2021, quashed the proceedings against Mantena Srinivas Raju who was arrayed as an accused in predicate offence. In the said order, it was found that the said Mantena Srinivas Raju has conspired with Aditya Tripathi and M/s.Osmo I.T.Solutions Private Limited for tampering the E-tenders and succeeded in tampering the tenders and getting orders. However, fact remains that the accused were acquitted and the entire process was cancelled and no crime proceeds were generated in favour of the venture company including Mantena Srinivas Raju. The Relevant para-34 of the CRL.P.No.634 of 2021, reads as follows:

“34. In the present case, the offence for which the FIR was issued was ended in acquittal of the prime accused. The allegation against the present petitioner is that the joint venture company has conspired with Aditya Tripati and M/s.Osmo I.T.Solutions Private limited and digital certificate holders i.e., accused nos.1 to 3 for tampering the e-tenders and succeeded in tampering the e-tenders and getting the contracts. However, the fact remains that accused Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted and in fact, entire tender process was

cancelled and no crime proceeds were generated in favour of the joint venture, including the petitioner herein. When crime proceeds were not generated or such crime proceeds did not come into possession of the petitioner, the authorities have no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings under the PML Act. The authorities cannot justify the continuation of proceedings in spite of acquittal of main accused on the ground that there were previous tampering of e-tenders based on the suspicion, which action amounts of abuse of process.”

04. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court in Parvathi Kollur v. State by Directorate of Enforcement in Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4258 of 2021) wherein it was held as follows:

“Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the issue as involved in this matter is no more res integra, particularly for the view taken by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & others v. Union of India and others, decided on 27.07.2022 where, the consequence of failure of prosecution for the scheduled offence has been clearly provided in the following terms: “187……………..(d) The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity connected with such property, which constitutes the offence of money-laundering. The Authorities under the 2002