TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earing No. 19 in the name of CIPET at Cauvery Gramina Bank, Mysuru with initial deposit of Rs. 2,000/-. He also got printed the letter heads in the name of CIPET Poly Consulting Engineers by showing his residential address. He used the current account opened by him to encash the cheques and the demand drafts issued in favour of CIPET and thus he fraudulently collected a sum of Rs. 1,25,71,209 in the said account. He then transferred different sums of money to his mother and wife, and also to his savings branch account. It is alleged that by siphoning of the money, purporting to be proceeds of crime, he purchased some immovable property in his and his wife's name. The CBI held investigation and filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 477 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The petitioners are also prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act ('PMLA' for short). The petitioners made an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharging them, and the said application having stood dismissed, the petitioner have fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 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). (iii) Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India is not applicable. When the petitioners were summoned by the authorized officers under PMLA, they were not accused. Section 50 of PMLA only enables the authorized authority to summon any person for the purpose requiring him to produce a document or give statement. This is a statutory right conferred on the authorized authority, any information that he collects during investigation cannot be brought within the purview of Article 20(3). He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pening 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. 8. As regards the third ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise. (6) 'To be a witness' in its ordinary grammatical sense means giving oral testimony in Court. Case law has gone beyond this strict literal interpretation of the expression which may now bear a wider meaning, namely, bearing testimony in Court or out of Court by a person accused of an offence, orally or in writing. (7) To bring the statement in question within the prohibition of Art. 20(3), the person accused must have stood in the character of an accused person At the time he made the statement. It is not enough that he should become an accused, any time after the statement has been made." 9. Here it appears, the statements of the petitioners were recorded under Section 50 of PMLA. It is argued by Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar that the petitioners were not summoned as accused at that time and that they were not compelled to give statement. Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar has relied upon a ruling of the High Court of Delhi in Vakamulla Chandra Shekhar Vs. Enforcement Directorate and another Paragraphs 48 and 49 are extracted here. 48. The submission of the petitioner that his fundamental right under Article 20(3) is violated-since he has been summoned u/s. 50 to give evidence an....