TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pal Sessions Court (Special Court for PMLA Cases), Chennai. 2. The incontrovertible facts are as under: 2.1 Viswanathan (1st petitioner/A.1) was into the business of imports and exports in the name and style of "Mercantile India". Between 1999-2002, Viswanathan (A.1) exported stainless steel utensils to Sri Lanka and between 2000-2001, he purchased 8 residential flats in Chennai. 2.2 The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence began an investigation of the exports made by Viswanathan (A.1) and found that he was not entitled to Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme credit facility and therefore, issued a show cause notice dated 07.02.2003 under the Customs Act to Viswanathan (A.1) and eventually, the Commissioner of Customs passed an adjud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leting the investigation, the Directorate of Enforcement filed a complaint in C.C. No.10 of 2017 in the Principal Sessions Court, (Special Court for PML Act Cases), Chennai, for offences under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PML Act against Viswanathan (A.1) and his wife Kavitha (A.2), for quashing which, Viswanathan (A.1) and Kavitha (A.2) have filed the present criminal original petition invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. B. Satish Sundar, learned counsel on record appearing for the petitioners, submitted that even if the averments in the FIR to the effect that Viswanathan (A.1) had obtained an Indian passport by suppressing the fact that he is a Sri Lankan national, is true, the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs Act at all. Adjudication proceedings were initiated against him for the exports made by him during 1999-2002 and that has also attained finality in the order dated 12.06.2007 passed by the CESTAT, Chennai, holding that the exports made by him were not illegal. 8. From a reading of Section 2(u) of the PML Act which defines the expression "proceeds of crime", it is limpid that the profit derived or obtained must be a result of a criminal activity which relates to a schedule offence. Even if we take the allegations in the FIR in Cr.No.123 of 2008 as gospel truth and that Viswanathan (A.1) had committed a criminal activity of obtaining an Indian passport and has thereby committed an offence under Section 420 IPC, there is no scope for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is question is an emphatic 'No', for, there should be a nexus between the criminal activity and the property acquired therefrom. In the absence of this nexus, the provisions of the PML Act cannot be invoked. 10. That apart, in this case, Kavitha, the second petitioner herein and the wife of Viswanathan (A.1) is an Indian national and the complaint does not say what is the proceeds of crime earned by her or secreted by her on account of the alleged criminal activity of her husband Viswanathan (A.1). Thus, the inclusion of Kavitha (A.2) as second accused in the complaint is manifestly illegal. 11. Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil took great pains to take this Court through the various United Nations charters and debates in the Parliament to show....