TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The present Criminal Original Petition has been instituted to grant leave to the petitioner herein to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondents/accused by judgment dated 20.09.2023 in C.C.No.13 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge/Special Court under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as PMLA). 2. The Directorate of Enforcement is the petitioner. A complaint dated 21.03.2018 was lodged by the General Manager, State Bank of India (SBI), Chennai. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered FIR in Crime No.RC.05/E/2018/CBI/BS&FC/BLR on 21.03.2018 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC r/w Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he transactions were only on paper. (d) diverted the crime proceeds derived by them by the commission of Scheduled Offences. 5. They have caused wrongful loss to the Banks in Consortium, which is estimated to the tune of Rs. 824.15 Crores (Outstanding as of 31.12.2017) plus accrued interest from 01.01.2018 and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves, during the period between 2009 and 2017. 6. On completion of the investigation under PMLA, a prosecution complaint was filed, which was taken cognizance by the Special Court for PMLA/the Principal Sessions judge at Chennai, in C.C.No.13 of 2018. The prosecution examined 28 witnesses and marked 10 Exhibits to prove the case. None was examined on the side of the accused. After tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that the Forensic Audit Report, which is a vital document as inadmissible seems to be incorrect. 10. Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4 would oppose by stating that, A3 and A4 are absolutely unconnected with the offence of money laundering. They were not the holders of proceeds of crime, which is mandatory for invoking the provisions of PMLA. The Special Court has categorically considered the validity of Ex.P3 document and its admissibility under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. When the Forensic Audit Report is neither original nor a certified copy, it is inadmissible in evidence. Thus the Trial Court is right in acquitting the respondents 3 and 4. Subsequent certification granted by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section. 52. We may hasten to add that Section 65-B does not speak of the stage at which such certificate must be furnished to the Court. In Anvar P.V. [Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 24 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 108], this Court did observe that such certificate must accompany the electronic record when the same is produced in evidence. We may only add that this is so in cases where such certificate could be procured by the person seeking to rely upon an electronic record. However, in cases where either a defective certificate is given, or in cases where such certificate has been demanded and is not given by the person concerned, the Judge conducting the trial must summon the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le points have been raised. d. The High Court must consider relevant material, sworn testimony of prosecution witnesses. High Court must apply its mind and record reasons [may be in brief] in support of this view. e. The High Court must examine the material on record to see whether prima facie it requires deeper scrutiny and re- appreciation/review of reconsideration of evidence. 238. Before proceeding further it is also pertinent to mention here that the present case is a case of a very different nature where the criminal proceeding were initiated on the basis of the direction of the Apex Court. The Apex Court monitored the investigation. It is not an ordinary criminal offence. 239. The present case is a case per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....harge against him had not been proved before the Trial Court. However, when the prosecution was not able to point out clinching ground or error resulting in miscarriage of justice or an erroneous conclusion, then the High Court would not hesitate to grant leave to the prosecution to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. Admissibility of ground to grant leave depends on the facts of each case. Complete justice to the parties being the objective, the prosecution in the event of raising grounds to the satisfaction of the Court, then they are entitled to secure leave from the Court to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. 16. In the present case, the prosecution is able to establish that vital documents relied on by the E....