TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'PML Act') wherein it is alleged that a FIR has been registered by CBI on 01.10.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 379, 411, 420, 427, 447, 468, 471 of IPC, Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act') and Section 26 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 against petitioner No. 1 and others. After investigation, the CBI filed the charge-sheet before the XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru on 02.08.2013. It is further alleged that the offence under the P.C. Act and other offences are the scheduled offences and therefore, based upon the CBI charge-sheet, the respondent registered a case in ECIR/BGZO/09/2013 on 19.09.2013. The said case was registered based upon the FIR registered by CBI. 4. It is alleged that on behalf of CBI, independent team of surveyors headed by the Chief Surveyor, conducted survey of the area occupied by the petitioner M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. (DMSPL). The survey report submitted on 07.12.2012 (item No. 80 of Relied Upon Documents in the charge sheet)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also mentioned in Annexure-I of charge sheet filed by CBI at Kammathervu village, Sandur taluk that the said mining lease was granted in favour of 'Shri Motilal J Boal' in 1962 and later, transferred to 'M/s. Motilal J Boal' in 1972 for extracting the iron ore area of 22.23 Ha (50 acres) for a period of 20 years with effect from 1966. M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate which was a partnership firm of Shri S.M. Jain and Smt. Kamala S. Jain was started mining in 1981. On 25.09.1991, a Private Limited Company in name of M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Private Ltd. came into existence and took over the partnership firm M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate. A charge sheet came to be filed regarding criminal conspiracy to cheat National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (NMDC) by stealing iron ore from the area of NMDC which are outside their area leased dishonestly inducing delivery of the property i.e. iron ore, which constitute an offence under Sections 120-B and 420 of IPC. Accordingly, a proceedings under the PML Act was initiated and the investigation was conducted under PML Act by registering a case on 19.09.2013 in No. ECIR/BGZO/09/2013. 7. During the course of investigation, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equent investigation of CBI had failed to notice and appreciate this fact. The Final report by CBI was a clear miscarriage of justice. 11. It is further contended that in furtherance of the report of the CBI the basis for initiating action under the PML Act issuing provisional attachment order dated 28.03.2014 came to be confirmed by the adjudicating authority under Section 8 of the PML Act by order dated 06.08.2014. No credence has been given to the binding nature of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 10335/1998 and connected with W.P. No. 19766/2005, which were disposed on 31.03.2008. Hence, the entire proceedings is illegal in view of the non existence of the scheduled offence. The discharge order passed by the Special Court on 30.01.2016 has affected very existence and continuation of proceedings in Spl. C.C. No. 134/2015 and taking cognizance is liable to be set aside. In view of the fact that the scheduled offence ceases to exist, all consequential action and proceedings there of would be rendered non-existent and is required to be set aside as not maintainable. It is further alleged that the offence was consequent to FIR registered under the PML Act and the law unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case, the petitioners are entitled for quashing the criminal proceedings. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of RADHESHYAM KEJRIWAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER reported in 2011(3) SCC 581. 14. Per contra, learned Special Counsel appearing for the respondent-ED objected the petition and contended that the proceedings under the PML Act is a stand alone offence and since merely the Special Court has discharged the accused, the offence committed under the PML Act will not vanish and therefore, the accused is required to face the trial. The provisional attachment order is on the administrative side but the proceedings under the PML Act is on the prosecution side. Therefore, the question of exonerating the petitioners from the charges does not arise. In the appeal, the appellate Tribunal has not passed any order in respect of the provisional attachment case. Therefore, the order passed by the appellate Tribunal will not come in the way of conducting prosecution against the petitioners and release of the property will not be a reason for closing the offence. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtment of Commerce and Industries. 17. It is an admitted fact that the case was registered by the ED based upon the cases registered by the CBI and the CBI also filed the charge sheet. The Special Court took the cognizance of the offence in Special C.C. No. 165/2013 and the accused persons filed an application for discharge. The Special Court by considering the case of the parties, allowed the application and discharged accused Nos. 1 to 7 vide order dated 30.01.2016. It is also an admitted fact that respondent ED filed a revision petition against the order of discharge which is pending before this Court. 18. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the case registered by the CBI, which was a predicate offence, was already ended in discharge as there was no offence at all. Such being the case, the proceedings under the petitioners under PML Act will not survive. Therefore, the proceedings shall have to be quashed. But, the learned Special Counsel for respondent contended that even if the predicate offence has ended in acquittal or discharge or conviction, that will not come in the way of conducting proceedings under the PML Act and the offence under the PML A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... No. 10335/1998 connected with W.P. No. 19766/2005 and the said writ petitions were considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and it was held that the prayer of the NMDC for quashing the notification dated 13.06.2006 cannot be granted and the subsequent lease deed 15.07.2006 cannot be declared as illegal and the notification dated 4.4.2005 challenged by the petitioners also held not to be quashed in its entirety. The Co-ordinate Bench has also held that the first renewal of licence in favour of NMDC over 647.50 Ha. (1600 acres) is upheld but not as per the sketch appended thereto. However, the sketch was re-drawn from the standing point A and end point of ML of M/s. SM and IO near Hari Shankar temple. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also held that the boundaries fixed by the JDLR in respect of NMDC is not correct and earmarked boundaries of the NMDC is only 1,600 acres. The judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court though challenged by the NMDC by filing writ appeals before the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 1134/2008 and 1135/2008 came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 12.08.2011. The judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has attained finality which was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant may take necessary steps in this regard as per law." 24. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Radheshyam Kejriwal's case (supra). Paragraphs 38 and 39 of the said judgment read as under: "38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows: (i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; (ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other; (iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; (v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t income, if any, shall ceased to have effect, and as per Section 8(6) of the PML Act, where the attachment of the property or retention of the seized property or record becomes final under clause (b) of Section (3), the adjudicating authority shall, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the persons concerned, make an order confiscating such property. 27. Whereas after the amendment of the Act in the year 2012, Sub-section (5) of Section (8) provides where on conclusion of a trial, an offence under this Act, the Special Court finds that the offence of money-laundering has been committed, it shall order that such property involved in the money-laundering or which has been used for commission of the offence of money-laundering shall stand confiscated to the Central Government. Sub-section (6) of Section 8 states where on conclusion of a trial under this Act, the Special Court finds that the offence of money-laundering has not taken place or the property is not involved in money-laundering, it shall order release of such property to the person entitled to receive it. That means, prior to the amendment, the power of confiscation and releasing the property to the holder was wit....