TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 384 and 120-B IPC against one Suryakant Tiwari and other accused. The offence under Section 384 IPC was added in the FIR by the Karnataka State Police on 03.09.2022. 3. The allegation against the main accused was for collection of Rs. 25 for every ton of coal transportation from mines with the active involvement of State Mining Officials/District Officials and Network Agents in the State of Chhattisgarh. The syndicate operated in a well-planned conspiracy for transportation of coal only after the payment of Rs. 25/- per ton to the syndicate formed by Suryakant Tiwari operating in the State of Chhattisgarh. The ECIR was accordingly recorded finding a case involving predicate offence at the time when offence under Section 384 IPC was existing on its addition though it was later on transferred for registration of FIR to the State Police of Chhatisgarh because the main accused Suryakant Tiwari was operating in that State only. The FIR was thus registered by the Chhatisgarh State Police on 17.01.2024 which was for the offence transferred to the State Police of Chhattisgarh with addition of the offence under Section 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 420/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one of the closest associates of Suryakant Tiwari in his statement dated 26.12.2022. The statement of Shri Nikhil Chandrakar could not have been relied by the respondents, rather he made a statement without any nexus of the appellant with him or with the syndicate of Suryakant Tiwari. In the light of the aforesaid, the allegation against the appellant is based on the hearsay statement of third party thus could not have been relied. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that no reasons to believe was supplied along with Show Cause Notice under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law when the Adjudicating Authority failed to adhere to the mandate of Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002. 9. It was further submitted that the statement of the appellant has been recorded under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 on 20.02.2023 where he was asked to sign the blank papers which seems to have been misused by the respondents to record appellant's admission about the receipt of cash from the syndicate involved in extortion of money on coal transportation. The statement of the appellant could not have been relied against him more so ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isgarh Assembly and had taken Rs. 46 lakhs out of the proceeds of crime. The amount aforesaid was part of the cash amount out of the illegal extortion on coal transportation in the State of Chhattisgarh. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 where he made admission. During the course of argument, the counsel submitted that his statement could not have been relied against him because those statements were recorded by the respondent after taking signature on the blank papers and, therefore, appellant sent letter to retract the statement. The learned counsel was asked to refer to the letter of retraction which he fairly conceded that no such letter has been placed on record. The pleading of retraction is thus for the sake of it and otherwise the statements recorded under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 are admissible and can be read in evidence. 14. It is otherwise a fact that the appellant was a Member of the Legislative Assembly and yet can sign blank papers. The allegation on the ED has been made for recording of the statement in ignorance of the fact that no objection for taking signature on the blank paper was ever made and there is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ryakant Tiwari in his appeal along with many appeals to challenge the Provisional Attachment Order of their properties though present appeal is against the seizure of the cash. The appeal preferred by Suryakant Sharma bearing No. 6275/2023 was decided by this Tribunal vide its order dated 05.12.2024 where elaborately the issue in reference to non-existence of the predicate offence has been dealt with. The relevant paras of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference: "27. The appellants have submitted that in absence of predicate offence, the proceeding under the Act of 2002 were not tenable yet not only ECIR was recorded but it proceeded with attachment of the property. The facts were referred to support the argument and for that the reference of FIR number 129/2022 registered by Karnataka State Police was given to show that it was not registered for the schedule offence under section 384 IPC at the time of registration of FIR. It was added on 03.09.2022 while the FIR was registered on 12.07.2022. It may be that ECIR was recorded subsequent to addition of the offence under section 384 of IPC but while filing the charge sheet by Karnataka State Police on 15.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 28. That apart, it is very much pertinent to note that when the FIR is registered under particular offences which include the offences mentioned in the Schedule to the PMLA, it is the court of competent jurisdiction, which would decide whether the Charge is required to be framed against the accused for the scheduled offence or not. The offences mentioned in the chargesheet by the I.O. could never be said to be the final conclusion as to whether the offences scheduled in PMLA existed or not, more particularly when the same were mentioned in the FIR registered against the accused. As held by the Three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal (supra), it is only in the event the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved by a Court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case (scheduled offence) against him/ her, there can be no action for money laundering against such a person or person claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence. 29. In the instant case, there is neither discharge nor acquittal nor quashing of the crim....