Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8 It is most relevant to note that CBI after investigation in the main case in RC MA1 2016 A0040 submitted the closure report before the Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Court, Chennai in exercise of power under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The said report was accepted vide order dated 25.9.2020 with an observation that for lack of sufficient evidence, nothing incriminating is found which may surface on the part of accused persons. Therefore, from the above facts, it is clear that the CBI registered three cases out of which in the main case RC MA1 2016 A0040, the final closure report was submitted by CBI itself which was accepted by the Court and in remaining two cases bearing Nos. RC MA1 2016 A0051 and RC MA1 2016 A0052, the High Court quashed the FIRs with respect to schedule offence.

15. Reverting to the issue of registration of the main FIR by the CBI bearing No. RC MA1 2016 A0040 and thereafter two other cases RC MA1 2016 A0051 and RC MA1 2016 A0052 are based upon the information furnished by the I.T. Department. As discussed above, the cases bearing Nos. RC MA1 2016 A0051 and RC MA1 2016 A0052 have been quashed by the High Court vide order dated 27.6.2018 passed in Criminal O.P. No. No. 409 of 2017. Thereafter in the main FIR RC MA1 2016 A0040, CBI submitted its closure report. The said closure report has been accepted by the Court in exercise of the power under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on 25.9.2020. The relevant extracts of closure report find mention in the court order is reproduced thus:

“The Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai has submitted a final report through Senior Public Prosecutor, CBI, praying an order to close the FIR pending before this court in RC MA1 2016 A 0040 U/s 120­B r/w 409, 420 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (c) (d) of PC Act, 1989 …………… ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­
3. This court perused all the relevant records including the FIR, Statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the documents collected during investigation, by the Investigating Officer and in the final report it is submitted that this court may be pleased to accept this Closure Report under Section­ 173(2) of Cr.P.C. and may drop the action against A1 to A6 for lack of sufficient Evidence. There was nothing incriminating surfaced on the part of accused persons, as these accused 1 to 6 had in conspiracy with unknown bank officials and public servants cheated the Government of India.

18. In view of the aforesaid legal position and on analysing the report of I.T. Department and the reasoning given by CBI while submitting the final closure report in RC MA1 2016 A0040 and the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, it is clear that for proceeds of crime, as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, the property seized would be relevant and its possession with recovery and claim thereto must be innocent. In the present case, the schedule offence has not been made out because of lack of evidence. The Adjudicating Authority, at the time of refusing to continue the order of attachment under PMLA, was of the opinion that the record regarding banks and its officials who may be involved, is not on record. Therefore, for lack of identity of the source of collected money, it could not be reasonably believed by the Deputy Director (ED) that the unaccounted money is connected with the commission of offence under PMLA. Simultaneously, the letter of the I.T. Department dated 16.5.2019 and the details as mentioned, makes it clear that for the currency seized, the tax is already paid, therefore, it is not the quantum earned and used for money laundering. In our opinion, even in cases of PMLA, the Court cannot proceed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. On perusal of the statement of Objects and Reasons specified in PMLA, it is the stringent law brought by Parliament to check money laundering. Thus, the allegation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in the Court. Even otherwise, it is incumbent upon the Court to look into the allegation and the material collected in support thereto and to find out whether the prima facie offence is made out. Unless the allegations are substantiated by the authorities and proved against a person in the court of law, the person is innocent. In the said backdrop, the ratio of the judgment of Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) in paragraph 38 (vi) and