IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5396/2014 BETWEEN:
1. Mrs. Noreen Anderson W/o Mr. A.T. Raja Singh, Aged about 63 years, R/at E-416, BMP-20, 10th Main, 4th Cross, Maruthi Nagar, New Thippasandra Post, Bengaluru – 560 075.
2. Mr. A.T. Raja Singh S/o late Dorai Singh, Aged about 67 years, R/at E-416, BMP-20, 10th Main, 4th Cross, Maruthi Nagar, New Thippasandra Post, Bengaluru – 560 075. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Guru Prasanna .S, Advocate) AND:
1. Union of India Represented by Directorate of Enforcement 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi – 110 003.
2. Directorate of Enforcement 3rd Floor, B Block, BMTC, Shantinagar TTMC, KH Road, Bengaluru – 560 021 By its Deputy Director, Mr. R. Chandramouli. ... Respondents (By Smt. Anitha H.R., CGC-Absent) This Criminal Petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the complaint and the proceedings initiated in Spl. C.C. No.118/2014 filed by respondent No.2 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru (CCH-1) (produced at Annexure-A) and etc., This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Spl.C.C.No.118/2014 on the file of the Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Court for Prevention of Money – Laundering Act, Bengaluru.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PML Act’, for short) are applicable only if the petitioners are accused of committing ‘scheduled offences’ under the PML Act. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in OBULAPURAM MINING COMPANY PVT. LTD. AND ORS. Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. REPORTED IN 2017 (3) KAR.LJ 179.
4. The argument of the learned counsel and the reliance placed on the judgment referred above, in my view, is wholly misplaced. Undeniably, petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act. The material allegations made against the petitioners are that during May-December 2006 accused Smt.Noreen Anderson was actively involved in a process connected with the proceeds of crime to the extent of Rs.1,92,76,507/- and had projected the same as untainted property by acquiring immovable property (acquisition value Rs.36,00,000/-) also by investing Rs.30.00 lakhs in Mutual Funds and thereafter redeeming the same and withdrawing the amount in cash (as mentioned in Para 13) and thereby committed the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of PML Act and rendered herself liable for punishment under Section 4 of PML Act. These averments squarely fall within Section 3 of the PML Act. Section 3 of the PML Act reads as under:
“3. Offence of money-Laundering.- Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.”
The offence under Section 3 is punishable under Section 4 of the PML Act and the same reads as under:
“4. Punishment for money-Laundering.- Whoever commits the offence of money- laundering shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that where the proceeds of crime involved in money-laundering relates to any offence specified under paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, the provisions of this section shall have effect as if for the words "which may extend to seven years", the words "which may extend to ten years" had been substituted.”
5. Since the allegations made in the complaint clearly make out the ingredients of the offence under Section 3 of the PML Act, the arguments of the learned counsel has no factual and legal basis. These allegations require to be investigated. Hence, I do not find any justifiable reason to stall the investigation on the purported contentions.
6. The decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court pertains to the offences which are alleged to have been committed prior to coming into force of the PML Act. In para 10 of the said decision, it is specifically noted that the offences allegedly committed by the writ petitioners therein were earlier to the insertion of the schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009. That apart, the said decision having been rendered on the factual matrix of the said case and no proposition of law having been laid down therein, the same is not applicable to the facts of this case.
Petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV