TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g of granite case registered by the Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu, in Crime No.156 of 2012, dated 06.08.2012, based on the complaint given by the Village Administrative Officer, Keelaiyur, Melur Taluk, Madurai. The prime accused in the predicate offence are C.Panneer Mohamed, Proprietor of M/s. Madurai Granite Exports, C.Rabeek Raja, Proprietor of M/s.R.R. Granites and others. 2. The substance of the complaint given by the Village Administrative Officer was that the accused persons indulged in illegal quarry of granites and caused damages to human life and properties using explosives. On completion of investigation, final report filed on 01.10.2013, against 22 persons for offences under Sections 120-B, 304, 447, 379, 420, 434, 467, 468 and 471 read with Sections 109, 114 and 511 of I.P.C. and Section 3(i), (ii) & (iii) of the TNPPDL Act and Section 6 read with Sections 3 (a) & 4 (a) of the Explosive Substances Act. 3. As per the averment in the charge sheet, based on the complaint given by Shri.Akbar Sait, Village Administrative Officer, Keelaiyur, Melur, Madurai, a case in Crime No.156 of 2012, was registered on 06.08.2012 by the Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Statio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stones quarrying activities, forgery, illegal usage of explosives, encroachment, trespassing and causing loss to the Government Exchequer valued to the tune of Rs. 450/- Crores and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves during the period between 2001 and 2012. 5. Since the offences mentioned above are offences mentioned under the schedule to PMLA, the first respondent herein registered E.C.I.R. on 30.06.2014 in file No.ECIR/CEZO/03/2014. During the course of investigation, the Directorate of Enforcement found that few more cases of similar nature in different Police Stations at Madurai been registered and under investigation. In some cases, the petitioners herein were the persons accused of the crime. The illegal quarry of granite by them under different names alleged to run to a tune of Rs. 450/- Crores. Investigation further disclosed that the accused persons are indulging in money laundering by layering the crime proceeds in properties and later, converting into untainted properties. After completing the investigation, complaint under Section 45 read with Sections 3 and 4 and Section 8(5) of the PMLA was filed and pending before the learned II Additional District and Sessio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded in detail in the complaint. 10. Manimegalai (A14) and Siddique Raja (A15) were arrayed as accused, since one of the properties, measuring 35 cents acquired and possessed by the C.Panneer Mohammed (A1) from Manimegalai. As per the complaint, first a power of attorney deed was executed by Manimegalai in favour of Panneer Mohamed and was registered on 23.05.2003. On the same day, Panneer Mohammed has paid a sum of Rs. 6,60,000/- to Manimegalai towards sale consideration and got a sale deed settlement receipt. Heeralal (A9), who is the brother of A1, is the witness, who attested the sale receipt. In fact, no sale deed executed in favour of Panneer Mohamed by Manimegalai. However, on the strength of the Power of Attorney Deed, Panneer Mohammed entered into a sale agreement with his brother Azad Mohamed (A11) in respect of that property. As per this sale agreement, the sale consideration is mentioned as Rs. 4,00,000/- and advance of Rs. 25,000/- paid to Panneer Mohammed (A1) by his brother Azad Mohameed (A11) the purchaser. The sale agreement was registered at Melur Sub- Registrar Office on 25.11.2005. This agreement remained incomplete. 11. Nine years thereafter, when the Director....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....abath (A6) and Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17051 of 2021 is filed by Rahuman (A7). These two petitioners are sons of A2 and A5. 14. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18013 of 2021 is filed by Manimegalai (A14) and Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13626 of 2021 is filed by Siddique Raja (A15). These two accused are not accused in the predicate offence. They are arrayed as accused being party to the process of laundering the tainted property. 15. According to the learned counsels appearing for A6 and A7, who are brothers and are sons of Rabeek Raja (A2), who is one of the Directors of M/s.Madurai Granites and Exports. They are roped in the case because of their relationship with A1 and A2. For A6, it is contended that, the complaint alleges that he (A6) had purchased 13 properties worth about Rs. 9.49 Crores and there is every reason to believe it was purchased from the proceeds of crime viz., illegal mining of granite from the area beyond the permitted extent. The explanation offered by him and his brother (A7) that they are doing business independently and they are not connected with the business of their parents not taken into consideration. For their income, they are paying tax, that fact not been considered by the complainant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion of a predicate offence. It is not even necessary that the person accused in the PMLA case must be an accused in the predicate offence. Law even permits joint trial of both the cases and it is not appropriate to canvass that only after the trial in predicate offence end in conviction, the proceeding in PMLA should commence. There is no bar for simultaneous investigation or prosecution and it could be easily understood from the frame of PMLA, which explicitly provides for joint trial of both the predicate offence and the money laundering offence by the same Court designated to try PMLA offences. If, in case, the predicate offence finally end in acquittal or discharge or quashed by the Court, there can be no offence of money laundering. 19. For further clarity, it is sufficient to refer one paragraph in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary's case as paginated in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 633, which gives quietus to the said argument:- ''175A. Needless to underscore that the 2002 Act is intended to initiate action in respect of money-laundering activity which necessarily is associated with the property derived or obtained by any person, directly or indirectly, as a result of specified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der to conceal the said property derived by Shri C.Panneer Mohamed (Accused No.1 herein) out of proceeds of crime derived by him by commission of offences vide FIRs No.156/2012 dated 06.08.2012, 166/2012 dated 12.08.2012, 397/2013 dated 09.07.2013 & 19/2015 dated 30.01.2015, all registered by District Crime Branch of Madurai City Police. The sale consideration as shown in the Document No.2309/2017 dated 11.07.2017 registered in the name of Shri S. Siddique Raja, Melur, Madurai, for the subject property is only Rs. 10,50,000/-, whereas the Guideline value is Rs. 1,02,00,000/- and the Fair Market Value is much higher. Shri C.Panneer Mohamed (Accused No.1 herein) in conspiracy with Smt. S.Manimegalai and others had transferred the landed property of 35 Cents at Melur into the name of Shri S.Siddique Raja in order to escape the clutches of law, which is nothing but an act of laundering the proceeds of crime derived by him out of the commission of offences in FIRs/Final Reports of Madurai District Police of Tamilnadu. Therefore, it stands to reason that the subject landed property as detailed below is nothing but property involved in Money laundering. Accordingly, it stands to reason th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....easuring 35 cents of land in S.No.310/2B, at Melur Village is property involved in money laundering. Whereas, the records relied by the complainant indicates that A14 is the owner of the property and A15 is the purchaser of it. This transaction was on 11.07.2017. For arriving at a prima facie satisfaction that this property possessed by A1 which he purchased out of proceeds of crime, the complainant has to show material that the said property is in possession and enjoyment of A1. The consideration shown in the sale receipt, sale agreements and the sale deed were paid by A1 along with the difference in sale price. In the absence of these link material, the conclusion arrived by the complainant remains without base. There is no material to show the sale price for the sale deed executed in favour of Siddique Raja through her Power Agent Bilal Mohammed was actually paid byA1. 24. Except the fact that A1 in the year 2003 held the Power of Attorney for this accused/petitioner in respect of this property and she executed a sale receipt for Rs. 6,60,000/- and later cancelled it after 14 years, before she alienated the property to Siddique Raja through her power agent Bilal Mohammed, there....