TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the same, this criminal revision case has been filed. 2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner raised very many contentions both in law as well as on facts. He, however, made it clear that he would be satisfied if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the trial court for fresh consideration. 3.The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Enforcement Directorate on the other hand submitted that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the revision petitioner and that the impugned order does not call for interference. 4.My esteemed Sister Judge has written a detailed order rejecting the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner and endorsing the stand of the learned Additional Solicitor General. I went through the same. I am, however, of the view that since the order of the learned trial Judge is virtually non-speaking and is further vitiated by non-application of mind, it has to be set aside on that sole ground and the matter remanded. While an appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding and the appellate court is obliged to re-examine the record bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner u/s. 50 of PML Act it has to be appropriate elaborate trial only within the veracity of the facts mentioned in the statement given by the petitioner/ A2 could come to light. On perusal of the ECIR it has been clearly stated that the Assistant Director, Mr. Venkadesh Babu, Directorate of Enforcement has stated that there is loss to the Government Exchequer to the tune of 256.44 Crores and the proceeds of crime is quantified as 256.44 Crores. Even though the contention of the petitioner that this illusory and there is no independent investigation for the allegation of loss of Rs. 256.44 Crores, there is prima facie based on the documents. This Court is of the view that there is prima facie for the loss to the tune of Rs. 256.44 Crores to the Government. Therefore it has to be tried elaborately and the respondent/ complainant has to be given opportunity to prove the facts of loss cause against the petitioner/A2. 75) With regard to fabrication of documents and application of sec.4, 5 of Explosive Acts can be decided only at the elaborate trial in this case. With regard to movable and immovable properties involved in this case has to be decided only in the trial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the predicative offence have been relied upon. An order dismissing a discharge petition ought to contain proper reasons. Mere employment of stereotyped expressions would not suffice. For instance, the complaint relies on the statement of the revision petitioner recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA. In the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge merely refers to this and stops there. The contents of the statement have not even been adverted to. Of course, an order dismissing a discharge petition ought not to read like a judgment convicting the accused. But then, there must be a broad discussion of the factual matrix leading to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Such an approach was not adopted in this case. The impugned order of the trial court is perverse. By saying so, I am not for a moment giving a clean chit to the revision petitioner. I would not even remotely remark that the conclusions arrived at by my esteemed Sister Judge are incorrect. I am not able to agree with the order proposed by my learned Sister only for the reason that there should be a proper exercise of the jurisdiction by the trial court under Section 227 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India and abroad. Subsequently on the application by the OGPL, Registrar of companies issued a certificate of incorporation on 22.02.2007. b. A2/ Thiru. Nagarajan and A3 / Thiru. Dayanidhi were appointed as directors and opened accounts in the Bank. The said OGPL acquired agriculture land in survey No.259/ 4B2 of Keelavalavu village on 20.9.2007 for an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs and registered as Document No. 4244/2007, dated: 20.09.2007. The total extent purchased by OGPL (A1) is 1.21.5 Hectares. c. Immediately, OGPL filed a quarry lease application dated 24.09.2007, with request to grant application to quarrying, coloured granite over an extent of 1.21.5 Hectares in survey number 259/4B2 of Madurai Taluk for 30 years to the Collector of Madurai, which was forwarded to the Director of Geology and Mining vide letter dated 08.12.2007. Then it was forwarded to the Government of Tamil Nadu on 18.06.2008. The application was approved by the Government and a lease deed dated 14.07.2008 was executed on 14.07.2008 to 12.08.2028 for 20 years, subject to certain conditions. OGPL immediately commenced quarrying operations and also obtained Transport permits for clearance of Gran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ite blocks from other areas. The land at survey number 297/5 (Pokkisa malai) a poramboke land of TAMIN has been issued the license to conduct the quarry Tr. Kanagavel Pandian and Tr. Sundara Pandian permitted to have been operate as total labour contract and raising contract and have been agreed to the same with TAMIN. The 'D' portion of the land is adjacent to the permitted area of OGPL and the earlier inspection report revealed that both the belts were merged to appear as a single pit. k. On 16.05.2012, the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines conducted inspections and quantified the value of granite transported illegally at 40,000 M3 at Rs. 256.44 crores. l. Therefore, the OGPL and other accused conspired and committed various offences as detailed in the charge sheet in the above illegal mining in the 'D' portion of survey number 297/5 for a total value of Rs. 256,44,00,00,000/- utilizing the excess transport permits to an extent of 1397 M3 for mining at survey number 259/4B2 in the name of OGPL for facilitating the mining and removal of illegal mined granites at survey No.297/5 in which TAMIN was permitted to quarry. Thus the OGPL had trespassed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2002, the person includes a company in terms of section 70(1) of PMLA where a person committing a contravention of the provision PMLA is a company, every person was at the time of contravention was in charges of and responsible shall be deemed to be guilty. 6. As such Nagaraj, the petitioner (A2) is the person in charge of the helm of affairs of A1 Company is responsible for the offence committed by A1. A3 being Director and state of mind of A1 during the relevant period also equally responsible for the contravention of the provision of section 3 of PMLA. 7. Grounds for discharge: 7.1) The ingredient of the offences are not attracted to the petitioner as the petitioner had valid granite quarrying lease, so he can be arrayed only under the Mines and Minerals Act 1957, since there is a specific provision in Rule 36(A)(5) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 for contravention of conditions of quarrying lease, likewise, action for trespassing into any land by a person can be taken under Section 21(3) of the The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for violations of lease conditions against the lessees. When a specific law for the allege....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and others vs. Union of India. The Department identified and attached the movable and immovable properties mentioned in the schedule-I to the impugned complaint as proceeds of crime based on the basis of equivalent value concept which is unsustainable in law. 7.7) At the time of investigation by the respondent, there is no schedule offence under the PML Act, 2002. Based on the charge sheet the ECIR and conducted the investigation the crime, which is illegal. 7.8) It is too premature to register ECIR as the same can be only registered where there has been a conviction and a judicial conclusion has been arrived at as to the quantum of proceeds of that crime. 7.9) The wrongful gain of Rs. 256.44 crores as arrived in the charge sheet in the scheduled offence solely relying upon the pit sizes and transport permit obtained by the petitioner is without any supporting evidence. 7.10) The charge sheet itself, fails to bring on record any lorry receipt for the said transportation of granite or any material to prove the actual transportation of granite blocks. 7.11) The investigating agencies under PMLA have not conducted any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esult of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. 10.3) As such the petitioner herein, is being prosecuted by the State agency for various offences in connections with illicit mining of granite arising from FIR no. 161/2012 on the file of Keelavalavu Police Station, and filed final report in P.R.C No. 30/2018, and now the Court taken cognizance and charge also framed. Among the other offences, the petitioner was prosecuted for the predicated offence under Sections 120(b), 420, 467 and 471 IPC, and sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 10.4) Whether the evaluation report and the statements that have been recorded in the course of the investigation of the predicate offence and the final report could be marked through the Investigation Officer or any other witness to be examined or not are matters which can be appreciated only at the time of trial. Under the scheme of PMLA, the investigation does not come to an end with the filing of the prosecution complaint under Section 44. The second explanation to Section 44 provides that a complaint is deemed to include a supplementary complaint. It is open to the Investigating Officer under PMLA to conduct furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is whether the order dated 30.05.2024 of the learned IInd Additional District Judge (CBI cases) is sustainable or liable to be set-aside. 13. The complaint in FIR No. 161/2012 dated 06.08.2012 was registered based on the complaint of Thiru. Parthiban, Village Administrative Officer of Keelavalavu Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai for the alleged offences under Sections 447 and 379 of IPC and section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, and under sections 4(1), 4(2)(A), 1(3) and 21(b) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 against the petitioner, Dayanidhi and M/s. Olympus Granites Private Limited., (OGPL), Madurai (whereof the petitioner was Director alleged that he was resigned on 20.07.2011) and after completing investigation, the Investigation Officer filed a charge sheet against the revision petitioner and others, under sections 120(b), 411, 420, 471, 304(ii) IPC r/w sections 3 and 4 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 for the illegal quarrying in leased Government land, with the connivance of Government officials, unlawful usage of explosives, to extract multicolour granite from the Earth from the Government land, and caused wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnment in the safety area. 3. Projecting that they would do quarry activity only in the license area not in the non licensed area, violation the lease condition, prepared forged document and cheated the government. 4. For the benefit of the OGPL, without fencing the area for safety purpose which become deep on account of quarry, created deep trench in the government poramboke land cover endanger to the public and their life. 5. Therefore the accused were charged under section 120(b), 411, 420, 471, 304(II) IPC and among other charges, and we do not find any illegality in framing charges under IPC. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in Vijay Madhanlal Choudry Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2023 (12) SCC 1, in which paragraph No.134 held as follows : "134. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form be it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... put forth by the revision petitioner that the Enforcement Directorate cannot rely upon the documents and evidence collected during the investigation of the predicate offence deserves no merit. 21. Further argument put forth by the revision petitioner is that the compliant cited the Investigation Officer, in the predicate offence as witness, in the absence of any independent witness, the complaint is baseless which is not correct as the respondent / complainant apart from the Investigation Officer relied upon number of documents and other records. Further there is no bar for the complainant to examine further witness even after the framing charges. 22. Proceeds of Crime defined under section 2(1)(u) of the PML Act, that any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by a person as a result of criminal activity relating to the schedule offence of the value of any property. Further the scheduled offences can be investigated only by the jurisdictional police. The jurisdictional police thoroughly investigated the predicate offence which includes offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 read with 120(b) IPC, and after enquiry, produced evidence to show that the ac....