Telangana High Court
V. Naga Surya Padam Sri vs The Union Of India on 10 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6271 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the order dated 28.03.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3288 of 2023 in S.C.No.109 of 2015 in E.C.I.R.No.07/HZO/2012 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused No.2 sought discharge from offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in S.C.No.109 of 2015 by way of filing the petition before the trial Court vide Crl.M.P.No.3288 of 2023. The prosecution alleged that her husband, accused No.1, a public servant, assembled disproportionate assets of immovable properties worth Rs.1,23,20,717/- and movable properties worth Rs.1,67,58,564/-. The name of the petitioner was not in the FIR, which was filed by CBI or ECIR, which was filed by Enforcement Directorate, and she further stated that section 109 IPC is not a scheduled offense under Prevention of Money 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6271 of 2024 Laundering Act. It is alleged that no independent investigation was conducted against her and relied on Vijay Madanla Choudhry v. Union of India 1 and M.E.Shivalinga Murthy v. CBI 2. The prosecution countered before the trial Court that the petitioner facilitated the deposits and investments of her husband utilizing crime proceeds to purchase properties, and thus aided money laundering. After hearing both sides, the trial court, vide order dated 28.03.2024, dismissed her petition, finding ample evidence against her. The petitioner now appeals, stating that there is insufficient material to frame charges against her.
3. Heard Sri Bidarkar Gopal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner seeks discharge from offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), stating that the prosecution lacks evidence linking her to her husband/accused No.1, alleged ill-gotten gains. He further submitted that the 1 2022 SCC Online SC 929 2 2020 2 SCC 768 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6271 of 2024 allegations of the prosecution are relied on assumptions and surmises, failing to establish a nexus between the petitioner and the deposits of accused No.1 and that the petitioner provided material showing sufficient income from agriculture and immovable properties in West Godavari.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the check period of 24 years (1988-2012) by the prosecution is erroneous, as the PMLA came into effect in 2005, and Section 13 of the PC Act was included as a scheduled offense in the year 2009. The relevant period should be 01.06.2009 to 25.06.2010, during which the properties of the petitioner valued less than Rs.30 lakhs, below the threshold for prosecution under PMLA. Therefore, the trial court erroneously dismissed the discharge petition of the petitioner, ignoring legal propositions. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the trial Court as there is lack of sufficient evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel filed counter affidavit stating that the submissions of the petitioner are devoid of merits. Even under the un-amended Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the petitioner is 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6271 of 2024 guilty of money laundering. The original Section already covered "any process or activity" connected to proceeds of crime, including concealment, possession, acquisition, and projection as untainted. He further submitted that the 2013 amendment made no material changes. The Enforcement Directorate conducted a detailed independent investigation, and documents filed by the petitioner reveals to that effect. He further submitted that it is specifically contended by the petitioner that Section 109 IPC is not a scheduled offense, is contrary to law, as established in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra).
6. Learned Standing Counsel contended that the involvement of the petitioner in processes connected to proceeds of crime makes liable under PMLA. The submission that only properties derived post 01-06-2009 are relevant is erroneous, as the continuing activity of enjoying proceeds of crime is punishable. The total value involved in the scheduled offense exceeds Rs.3 crores, surpassing the Rs.30 lakhs threshold. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
5
SKS,J Crl.P.No.6271 of 2024
7. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, this Court has reviewed that the trial Court dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner, citing ample evidence supporting allegations against the petitioner. As seen from the record, investigations under PMLA, 2002, revealed accused No.1 and his family acquired disproportionate assets between 1988 and 2010. Accused No.1 claimed properties were bought with income from his wife and the gifts from his relatives, but investigations showed these claims were unsubstantiated. It is further noticed that accused No.1 made numerous suspicious transactions, using the accounts of his father-in-law to route cash and purchase properties exceeding known income. Further, the petitioner facilitated these transactions. The family of the petitioner acquired immovable properties worth Rs.1,23,20,717/- and movable properties worth Rs.1,67,58,564/-, disproportionate to known income. Properties valued at Rs.2,90,79,281/- were provisionally attached under PMLA, 2002.
8. Further, it is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 24-year check period (1988- 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6271 of 2024 2012) is erroneous since PMLA took effect in the year 2005 and Section 13 of the PC Act was added as a scheduled offense in the year 2009 and he claimed the relevant period should be 01.06.2009, to 25.06.2010, during which the properties of the petitioner valued less than Rs.30 lakhs, below the PMLA threshold. However, the Standing Counsel countered that the petitioner is guilty of money laundering under the un-amended Section 3 of PMLA, which covers concealment, possession, acquisition, and projection of proceeds of crime. However, when deciding a discharge petition, the Court considers whether there is a ground for presuming the offense was committed, not whether conviction is warranted. Prima facie, allegations exist against the petitioner, and discharging them would be an abuse of process. Thus, this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to set aside the order of the trial Court and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. In view thereof, this Criminal Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 28.03.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3288 of 2023 in S.C.No.109 of 2015 in 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6271 of 2024 E.C.I.R.No.07/HZO/2012 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K.SUJANA, J Date: 10.01.2025 PT 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6271 of 2024 THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE K. SUJANA P.D. ORDER IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.6271 of 2024 Date: 10.01.2025 PT