TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For the Respondent : Mr.N.Ramesh Special Public Prosecutor (ED) ORDER P.N.PRAKASH, J. This writ petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.60 of 2018 pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, (City Civil Court), Chennai, dated 07.12.2018 and quash the proceedings. 2. The minimum facts that are required to decide this quash petition are as under: 2.1 One And....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asu Ravinder (A1). 2.3 In connection with this seizure, the CBI registered an FIR in R.C.No.MA1 2011 A 0033 on 29.08.2011 and after completing the investigation, filed charge sheet in C.C.No.3 of 2013 before the Special Court for the CBI Cases, Chennai, for the offences under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against Andasu Ravinde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner and Mr.N.Ramesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor (ED) appearing for the Enforcement Directorate/respondent. 4. A reading of the complaint shows that the proceeds of crime has been determined as the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-, which is the subject matter of the case in C.C.No.3 of 2013. 5. The allegations against Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) in the CBI case is that he had paid a bribe of Rs. 50,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... crime as untainted money. In this case, the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- as long as it was in the hands of Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) could not have been stated as a tainted money because it is not the case of the CBI in C.C.No.3 of 2013 that Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) had mobilised Rs. 50,00,000/- via a criminal activity. The sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- became the proceeds of a crime only when Andasu Ravinder ....