TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A-PMLA/469/BNG/2013, MP-PMLA/934/BNG/2025 Misc MP-PMLA/8277/BNG/2021 Stay FPA/PMLA/470/BNG/2013, MP-PMLA/8273/BNG/2021 Stay FPA/PMLA/453/BNG/2013, MP-PMLA/933/BNG/2025 Misc MP-PMLA/8271/BNG/2021 Stay FPA-PMLA/454/BNG/2013 SHRI V. ANANDARAJAN: MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate, Mr. Kirit J, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate and Mr. Nikunj Bindal, Advocate FINAL ORDER These appeals have been preferred against the order passed in Original Complaint (OC) No. 158/2012, by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA), whereby Provisional Attachment Order ("PAO") No. 07/2012, was confirmed. Facts in brief 2. The brief facts of the case are that based on a complaint received by them, the Lokayukta Police, Bangalore registered an FIR and an investigation was carried out. Based on the findings from the investigations conducted, the Karnataka Lokayukta Police filed a charge- sheet bearing No. 04/2011, dt. 07-07-2011 u/s. 173 of the Cr. PC before the Court of the XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge for Lokayukta Cases, Bangalore. 3. A perusal of the Charge Sheet revealed that during November, 2004, Sh. Katta Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vas directly issued cheques of M/s ITASCA to K.S. Jagadish as illegal gratification. 6. In view of the above findings, the Karnataka Lokayukta filed a charge-sheet alleging that the accused had committed offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 120B, 420, and 471 of the IPC as well as provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, namely, Sections 7, 8, and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d). As these were scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), an ECIR/07/BZO/2011-AD-MNT dated 11.08.2011 was registered by the Directorate. 7. As part of the ED's investigation, the statements of bank accounts of the companies and the individuals involved in this case were scrutinized and statements were recorded. 8. A Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dt. 25.09.2012 was passed by the Ld. Joint Director attaching various properties mentioned therein. Details of the properties are not being reproduced in this order for the sake of brevity and also because the same are not pertinent to the issues on which the case has been argued from either side. 9. The said PAO was confirmed by the Ld. AA vide its order dt. 21.02.2013. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ution Complaints filed under the PMLA. Arguments on behalf of the respondent 15. From the respondent directorate's side, it is submitted that the discharge of several of the accused persons in the scheduled offence case was based on technical grounds such as multiplicity of FIRs and procedural issues, and the same does not warrant setting aside the attachment order confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The predicate offences related to the land acquisition scam involving the appellant and others, have not been finally decided and remain under challenge before the Supreme Court. The money laundering offence under the PMLA is an independent offence that can continue irrespective of the status of the predicate offence case. The discharge orders, therefore, overlook the substantial evidence of money laundering unearthed during the investigation, including bank transaction trails and improper possession and use of proceeds of crime. 16. It was further argued that the quashing of proceedings in the scheduled offence case is not "final" as the agency investigating the said scheduled offence case has filed a Special Leave Petition and ED has filed an application for impleadment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ittal 472/2013 C. Subramannapa Yes Discharged 18.06.2024 Yes, appeal filed before Karnataka High Court vide FR No. 1635/25 on 10.11.2025 Pending 473/2013 S. Harish Yes Discharged 18.06.2024 Yes, appeal filed before Karnataka High Court vide FR No. 1635/25 on 10.11.2025 Pending 475/2013 K. Vanaja Yes No NA NA 479/2013 K. Krishna Kishore Yes No NA NA 458/2013 K. Rangaswam y Yes Discharged 04.01.2025 Yes, appeal filed before Karnataka High Court vide FR No. 1633/25 on 10.11.2025 Pending 459/2013 R. Mohan Kumar Yes Discharged 04.01.2025 Yes, appeal filed before Karnataka High Court vide FR No. 1633/25 on 10.11.2025 Pending 451/2023 K.S Jagdish Yes No NA NA 452/2013 Katta Subramany a Naidu Yes Discharged Yes, appeal filed before Karnataka High Court vide FR No. 1627/25 on 07.11.2025 Pending 477/2013 Jagdish Chandra Prakash Yes Discharged Yes, appeal filed before Karnataka High Court vide FR No. 1634/25 on 10.11.2025 Pending 476/2013 K.S Jalaja Yes Discharged 18.06.2024 Yes, appeal filed before Karnataka High Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellants herein in the PMLA cases are of 03.06.2024, 18.06.2024 and 04.01.2025. The statutory period for filing of appeal is already over and nothing has been filed even till the date on which final arguments on the case were heard by this Appellate Tribunal, but only the intention to challenge the orders has been stated. As regards the SLP preferred before the Apex Court against the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court quashing the scheduled offence case, the submission of the Ld. counsel for the appellant is that the legal position is well settled that ED has no jurisdiction to challenge the order passed in the scheduled offence case. He further stated that SLP is an extraordinary remedy and mere pendency of an SLP would not affect the finality of the order of discharge, not a statutory remedy. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 26.09.2022 in the case of Harish Fabiani & Ors v. Enforcement Directorate & Ors W.P.(CRL) 408/2022. 23. Arguments on merits in this case were heard on 08.10.2025. Subsequently, the factual summary in tabular form as mentioned in para-18 above was called for on 28.10.2025, which was submitted on 11.11.2025 wherein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing quashing of the Criminal proceedings by filing Crl. Petition No 5102/2015 and the Hon'ble High Court after considering all the contentions including the contentions raised in the present petition have quashed the FIR and the charge-sheet." 27. The operative part of the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No.5102 OF 2015 (order dated 10.03.2016) is as follows: "26. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The FIR registered in Cr.No.57/2010 of Lokayukta police station, Bangalore City and the charge-sheet filed in pursuance of Cr.No.57/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act and Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w 120-B IPC in Spl.C.C.No.135/2011 on the file of XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special 41 Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in so far as it relates to the petitioner-Sri. S.V. Srinivas (accused No.3) are hereby quashed." 28. Thus, it can be seen that the Hon'ble High Court has not quashed the FIR and the chargesheet per se but have quashed the same only in so far as it relates to the petitioner Sh. S.V. Srinivas. 29. Through yet another order passed on 03.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....warnagar) and Rs. 37 crores to M/s INDU Builders's Karnataka bank account from their account. Further from M/s ITASCA company an amount of Rs. 50 crores were transferred to M/s INDU builders bank account. Thus, Basavapoornaiah and S.V. Srinivas had totally transferred an illegal gratification amount of Rs. 87 crores to the bank account of INDU Builders. Out of the said amount of Rs. 87 crores received in the account of M/s INDU Builders, Mr Katta Subramanya Naidu received payment of Rs. 5,09,27,700/-. In addition to above, Mr Katta Subramanya Naidu through his son Mr K.S. Jagadish had received illegal gratification amount of Rs. 21,95,80,000/-, In this way Mr. Katta Subramanya Naidu & Mr. K.S. Jagadish, directly in his name and through companies and through other names had received totally a sum of Rs. 27,05,07,700/- as illegal gratification as mentioned in the charge sheet. • In order to obtain the consent letters from the land lords by cheating them, Mr K.S. Jagadish, Mr S.V. Srinivas, Mr Jagaiah, Mr Venkaiah, Mr B.K. Manju, Mr M. Gopi all together had made a criminal conspiracy. Accordingly, in order to fulfil the purpose of getting the land for the SEZ for ITAS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heated. • During the period of verification, the landlords, who were not available and whose legal heirs were also not traceable, by issuing cheques in favour of such non traceable legal heirs an amount of Rs. 83,60,60,178/- were withdrawn by the said accused persons as stated in the charge sheet. • In his statement dated 01.06.2012, Katta Jagadish admitted that he directly received a sum of Rs. 18,29,08,032/- from two accounts- M/s ITASCA (Axis Bank) and M/s INDU Builders & Developers (Karnataka Bank) and utilized this money towards construction of the residential bungalow at Rajmahal Vilas Extension, Bangalore, owned by his mother and father jointly. • He has given elaborate narration of the utilization of funds on his behalf, in his statement (Para 49 of the impugned order) • Further, in his second statement dated 13.06.2012 recorded under section 50, he admitted that the first statement given on 01.06.2012 was true and correct. 32. As is evident from the above, Sh. Katta Jagadish alias K.S. Jagadish allegedly played a key role in the scheduled offence. As per the tabular summary submitted from both the appellant's and the r....