TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 682
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er in this petition is to quash Annexure-G complaint and further proceedings thereof against the petitioner in the interest of justice. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the ED and perused the decisions as well as the prosecution records made available. 3. While seeking quashment of the case as against the petitioner/3rd accused, it is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that ED registered R.C.No.18(A)/2008/CBI/KER against the petitioner arraying her as the 2nd accused and when the matter had been pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court as C.C.No.125 of 2021 the petitioner filed Crl.M.C.No.2017 of 2022 before this Court and in the said proceedings as per order dated 10.04.2025, this Court quashed the same where the prosecution alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act 1988) and under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC' hereafter) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 by the petitioner along with the other accused. Accordingly it is submitted by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty is the inevitable ingredient and without which the said offence would not lie. Therefore the knowledge should be gathered from the very beginning to sustain an offence under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002. In this connection the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the allegation in RC.5(A)/2009/CBI/TVM, which was pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the ED as the predicate or scheduled offence wherein it has been stated that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy Sri. P.K. Sanal kumar (A1) accepted Rs.15 lakh from Sri. M.R. Lenin (A3) and Sri. Pradeep Rajan (A5) through Cheque No.G38123 dated 01.12.200G for Rs. 10 lakh of HDFC Bank, Bangalore and cheque No.255545 dated 27.02.2007 for Rs.5 lakh of HDFC Bank, Vazhuthacaud Branch, which were deposited in the joint account of Sri. P.K. Sanalkumar (A1) and his wife Smt. P.R. Sandhya in HDFC Bank, Palakkad/Vazhuthacaud, as gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive/reward for doing the above official Act Sri. M.R. Lenin (A3) and Sri. Pradeep Rajan (A5) in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy abetted the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be determined in a petition seeking quashing of the case. It is also pointed out that, even otherwise, since the CBI has registered a case alleging that the property was admittedly purchased in the name of the petitioner using money out of Rs. 15 lakh allegedly demanded and accepted by her husband, Sri. Sanal Kumar, as bribe and she has been possessing the same as of now also, the same would show that she knew that she has been in possession of property acquired with the said money, which constitutes proceeds of crime. This is sufficient to hold prima facie that she had the knowledge or mens rea necessary to constitute an offence under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, it is relevant to refer paragraph 270 of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary's case (supra) as under:- "270. Needless to mention that such process or activity can be indulged in only after the property is derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity (a scheduled offence). It would be an offence of money-laundering to indulge in or to assist or being party to the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime; and such process or activity in a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of extortion may assist the said accused in the concealment of the proceeds of extortion. In such a case, the person who assists the accused in the scheduled offence final report concealing the proceeds of the crime of extortion can be guilty of the offence of money laundering. Therefore, it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence. What is held in paragraph 270 of the decision of this Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary supports the above conclusion. The conditions precedent for attracting the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA are that there must be a scheduled offence and that there must be proceeds of crime in relation to the scheduled offence as defined in clause (u) of subsection (1) of Section 3 of the PMLA. xxxxxxxxx 31. While we reject the first and second submissions canvassed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the third submission must be upheld. Our conclusions are: a. It is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2002 or before the inclusion of such offences in the Schedule of the PML Act, 2002. While answering this question this Court held in paragraph No. 4 that this question is no longer re integra as it was held that in Vijay Mandalal Chaudharay and Others v. Union of India M Ors. [(2023) 12 SCC 1], the Apex Court held that it was possible, as the offence under Section 3 is a continuing offence. 12. The Division Bench further observed that the Apex Court in its judgment dated 17.03.2025 in SLP(Crl.) C185/2023 (Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement M Another) answered this question pointedly and in the affirmative. The Court held that money laundering is not a static event but an ongoing activity, as long as illicit gains are possessed, projected as legitimate, or reintroduced into the economy and thus if the accused commits any of the acts as defined in Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 after its commencement, the Enforcement Directorate could maintain a criminal action against him, irrespective of the fact that the predicate offence allegedly took place before the commencement of the PML Act, 2002. 13. Finally this court held in paragraph No.G as under:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.] 15. Section 24 reads as under:- Section 24:-Burden of Proof.-- in any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime under this Act,- (a) In the case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering; and (b) in the case of any other person the Authority or Court, may presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering. 16. It is true that as per the common order passed by this Court in Crl.R.P.No.5G0 of 2021 and Crl.M.C.No.2017 of 2022 case against the petitioner which was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvanathapuram as C.C. No. 125 of 2021 was quashed by this Court. In fact the said case arose out of RC.18(A)/2008/CBI/KER. However the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the ED is that the predicate offence for the purpose of the present complaint is R.C.5(A)/2009/CBI/TVM alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC r/w Sec....