Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) The case instituted against the petitioners' is in violation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of Cr.P.C. For the same set of facts, the petitioners were prosecuted by the CBI for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 477 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c) and
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution launched against the petitioners under PMLA amounts to double jeopardy.

(ii) The offence under Section 4 of PMLA is a stand alone offence; it is a very distinct offence which has to be tried in a Special Court. Distinguishing factor is concealment or possession or acquisition or using the proceeds of crime. There is a clear allegation against the petitioner that they used the money siphoned of from CIPET for acquiring immovable property. They can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 4 of PMLA and Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 Cr.P.C. are not applicable. In the context, he has relied upon two judgments of the co-ordinate benches of this court in the cases of Mr. Dyani Antony Paul and another (W.P.No.38642/2016 and connected cases) and Shri. Katta Subramaniyam Naidu Vs. Deputy Director (Criminal Petition No.5698/2019 and connected cases).

7. The second point is in regard to the petitioner being vexed two times. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 Cr.P.C. govern this principle. The allegation against the petitioners is that they acquired immovable property from the proceeds of crime. Section 2(4) of PMLA defines proceeds of crime as any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were prosecuted by the CBI for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 477 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c) and (d) Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court below has observed in the impugned order that the petitioners have been convicted for these offences. Now if the facts are analyzed, it becomes clear that the petitioners were prosecuted for offense under Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act on the charges of opening a bank account in the name of CIPET and siphoning of its money. Since the 1st petitioner was also a public servant he was prosecuted under Prevention of Corruption Act. While these offences emanate from these events which constitute a crime, acquisition of immovable property from the proceeds of crime constitutes an independent and distinct offence. To constitute an offence under Section 4 of PMLA, the requirement is an activity connected with proceeds of crime, that means, the proceeds of crime must be in existence. The result in the proceeding in relation to predicate offences is immaterial. As has been held by the coordinate benches of this court in Dyani Antony Paul and Katta Subramaniaym Naidu, the offences under PMLA is a stand alone offence. The CBI prosecuted the petitioners for the offences which are not same as offences under Section 4 of PMLA Act. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India as also Section 300 of Cr.P.C. are applicable only when prosecution is launched for the second time for the same offence or offences in relation to a particular incident of crime, which is not the factual position here. Therefore this ground also fails.