Court Deliberates If Land Seizure Qualifies as Proceeds of Crime Under PMLA; Questions Guilt Without Predicate Offense.

The HC reserved judgment after hearing arguments on the interpretation of section 2(u) of the PMLA Act concerning whether forcible possession of landed property constitutes proceeds of crime. The petitioner argued the absence of a predicate offence and insufficient evidence for guilt under the PMLA Act, challenging the Enforcement Directorate's case.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of section 2(u) of the PMLA Act regarding forcible possession of landed property as proceeds of crime, absence of predicate offence alleged against the petitioner, and sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt under the PMLA Act.

Interpretation of section 2(u) of the PMLA Act: The Additional Solicitor General of India referred to witness statements under section 50 of the PMLA Act and legal precedents during arguments. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kapil Sibal, emphasized that forcible possession of landed property does not qualify as proceeds of crime under section 2(u) of the PMLA Act. He argued that no predicate offence was alleged against the petitioner and contended that based on the case presented by the Enforcement Directorate, it is unreasonable to conclude the petitioner's guilt under the PMLA Act.

Conclusion: The learned senior counsel for the petitioner concluded his arguments, and the judgment was reserved for further deliberation.

---