2023 (1) TMI 682 - SCH - Money Laundering

Key legal issues addressed in recent judgment on recusal, urgent listings, closure reports, and appeal survival.

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Versus M/s OBULAPURAM MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

The judgment addressed issues including judicial recusal, urgent listing procedures, closure reports leading to quashing of proceedings, disposal of ... Grant of Regular bail - Money Laundering - siphoning of funds - the allegation is that the amount was given by RFL to entities which were, directly or indirectly, owned or controlled by the applicant, or in which the applicant otherwise had financial interest, including companies linked to RHC - HC [2020 (7) TMI 556 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that There seems to be no rationale for continuing the applicant’s judicial custody as an undertrial in this case - HELD THAT:- The present case relates to the predicate offence in respect of the same matter - List before a Bench of one of us (Hon. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.) is not a Member - Insofar as the urgent listing now is concerned, it is the prerogative of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. Money Laundering - public auction - the allegations are to the effect that the lands, which would fetch higher value in the public auction, were purchased by the petitioners in connivance with the other accused resulting in a huge loss - burden to prove - HC [2019 (10) TMI 1236 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that the burden of proof by discharging the presumption lies upon the persons charged. Hence, investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the respondent are totally distinct and different - HELD THAT:- Learned Solicitor General fairly states that since there is a closure report in respect of the predicate offence which has been accepted, the present proceeding will not survive and consequently the ECIR No.CEZO/01/2017 stands quashed - SLP disposed off. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - attachment orders - HC [2017 (8) TMI 135 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that Admittedly, 2nd respondent filed the case only based on the charge sheet of the CBI, who have not conducted any enquiry on their own. In fact, all the documents are original documents of the alleged proceeds of crime, which are in the custody of the CBI Court. When the entire documents are in the custody of the Court, there cannot be any reason to believe that the properties will be dealt with in any other manner - HELD THAT:- Learned Solicitor General fairly states that since the proceedings before this Court arise from an order of attachment and there is acquittal in respect of predicate offence, the proceedings really would not survive - the appeals filed by the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) do not survive and are accordingly disposed of. Issues:1. Recusal of a judge in a related matter.2. Urgent listing prerogative.3. Closure report leading to quashing of proceedings.4. Disposal of Special Leave Petition.5. Acquittal in relation to predicate offence leading to disposal of appeals.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment begins by addressing the recusal of one of the judges, as mentioned in an order dated 16.12.2021 in a related matter. The case at hand pertains to the predicate offence in the same matter where the judge had recused. It is noted that the matter is to be listed before a Bench where the recusing judge is not a member, ensuring impartiality and fairness in the proceedings.2. The judgment acknowledges that the urgent listing of the case falls under the prerogative of the Chief Justice of India, highlighting the procedural aspect of case management and scheduling in the Supreme Court.3. The next issue pertains to a closure report in relation to the predicate offence, which has been accepted. The learned Solicitor General confirms the closure report and states that the present proceeding will not survive as a result. Consequently, the ECIR No.CEZO/01/2017 is quashed based on the closure report, leading to the disposal of the application and the Special Leave Petition.4. Moving on, the judgment addresses Criminal Appeal No(s). 391-392/2018, which originated from an order of attachment. It is noted that there has been an acquittal concerning the predicate offence. The learned Solicitor General acknowledges this acquittal and states that the proceedings would not survive in light of the acquittal. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) are disposed of, and the trial Court record is directed to be sent back to the trial Court.In conclusion, the judgment covers various legal aspects, including judicial recusal, urgent listing procedures, acceptance of closure reports leading to quashing of proceedings, disposal of Special Leave Petitions, and acquittal affecting the survival of appeals. The judgment ensures adherence to legal principles and procedural fairness in addressing the issues at hand.