TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondent G.Varadarajan [A1] was the Sub-Postmaster at Vedasandhur Post Office, Dindigul Division. At that time, one Thimmaraya Perumal [A2] was the Postal Assistant. The second respondent Murugesan [A3] was the Postal Assistant. The third respondent S.Karthika [A5] was the Mahila Pradhan Khestriya Bachat Yojna Agent [in short ''MPKBY'']. The fourth respondent S.Shanmugam is the father of the third respondent. 2.2. Based on source information, a case was registered by the CBI, ACB, Chennai, on 24.02.2009 regarding falsification of accounts, forgery and cheating to a tune of about Rs. 1.27 Crores, from the Post Office Savings Scheme Account by misusing the password and manipulating the data. On completion of investigation, final report was filed by D.S.P., CBI-SPE: ACB, Chennai, against Thimarayaperumal, Varadarajan, Murugesan and Karthika, for the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case was taken cognizance in C.C.No.6 of 2010 on the file of II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai. Pending trial, Thimaraya Perumal d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... put in a nutshell as below:- (i) The FIR copy of the predicate offence marked as Ex.P2 is not the original, but an attested copy without date. (ii) The original statements of the accused persons alleged to have been recorded not placed before the Court. The photocopy/carbon copy of the their statements are not reliable. (iii) Further, the statement of the accused being in the nature of compulsory testimony, same is prohibited under Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution. Hence, same to be rejected. (iv) The computer printouts of the Bank Statements not been duly certified as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. (v) The predicate offence registered by CBI is still pending. Before the final verdict in the predicate offence, launching of criminal prosecution for money laundering will not arise as the same is premature. Court cannot predetermine that the accused had committed a criminal act resulting in acquiring proceeds of crime and in furtherance of the said crime, the third accused had purchased property in the name of her father, the fourth accused, before the conclusion of trial. (vi) The learned trial Judge, put a hypothetical question to himself that if t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the accused persons, the trial Court has taken a convenient route of rejecting the evidence of sterling quality on flimsy reasons. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused made an emphatic submissions that a premature prosecution, based on the assumption and presumption been rightly rejected by the trial Court, since the evidence relied by the prosecution were not only inadequate, but also inadmissible. The valid reasons given by the trial Court for acquitting all the accused is not one among many possible view, but the only possible view. In the instant case, the respondents had marshalled evidence to show the properties were acquired through other known sources. While so, when no other alternate reasonable possible view could be imagined, the trial Court judgment ought to be confirmed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further stated that, it is not only the lapse of the prosecution, which has been pointed in the judgment, but also the positive evidence lead through witnesses and document, to show the legal source for purchase of the property, had earned the acquittal for the accused. The property, which has now been attache....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....registration of a case under the I.P.C. and the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is included in the schedule of the PMLA. Further, while the catena of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would say that summoning a witness or an accused to give statement before a non-police officer will not attract Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act to deem it as inadmissible document. The trial Court ought not to have held that the statements of the witnesses, who later turned to be accused, have to be discarded for being compulsory testimony. Even, if there is such plea, it has to be tested in the manner known to law and without even testing the same, ignoring it in toto, is contrary to the provision of law as well as the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad reported in AIR 1961 SC 1808. 10. In this regard, it is also profitable to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others vs. Union of India and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 929 : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633, which is a locus classicus in respect of the PMLA. In this judgment, a separate chapter for Section 50 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded on a presumption that the crime investigated by CBI had generated proceeds of crime and further leading to acquisition of property. Without placing material evidence, either about the crime or about the proceeds from that crime, the complainant cannot succeed. That is the reason why, the trial Court has specifically pointed out that without proving the fundamental fact, which is necessary to invoke the provisions of the PMLA, the complainant cannot succeed. This Court totally agrees with this view. This Court also bound to point out that the trial Court has gone further to say that the trial in the schedule offence is pending and if it is proved that by fraud, misappropriation and falsification of account, the accused have gained wrongfully, the Prevention of Corruption Act provides for forfeiture of that property acquired through wrongful gain and therefore, the State is not without any remedy, but can proceed under those provisions for forfeiture of the property. 13. From the records and information collected from the e-Courts web site, this Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the predicate offence tried in C.C.No.6 of 2010 against the appellants 1 to 3 has ended in....