AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so far as the petitioner/4th accused is concerned. 2. Records show that, earlier, the petition was heard by a Division Bench of this Court and, by order dated 8.2.2021, the Division Bench allowed the petition and quashed the proceeding in C.C.No.9 of 2018 and the consequential summon dated 21.12.2018. 3. Challenging the said order, the respondent herein filed Criminal Appeal Nos.110-112 of 2022. By order dated 21.1.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order dated 8.2.2021 and remanded the matter to the High Court for reconsideration on merits and in accordance with law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while remanding the matter, directed the parties to appear before the High Court on 1.2.2022, when the High Court may proceed to hear the remanded matter on that day itself or assign a suitable date as may be convenient to it, while ensuring that the remanded proceedings are disposed of expeditiously. 4. The matter was taken up by the roster Bench on 3.2.2022 and at the request of both sides, adjourned to 22.2.2022. On 22.2.2022, at the request of both sides, the matter was adjourned to 7.3.2022. Thereafter, the matter was not listed and when the matter was listed before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mining lease period came to an end in the year 2003 and, thereafter, the petitioner approached the Department and got the said mining lease renewed on 5.5.2004 only in respect of 3.76.0 hectares and lease deed was also executed with the District Collector on 27.6.2004 and the petitioner carried on mining operations till 31.3.2008. No quarrying operations were done in respect of 0.26.0 hectares and thereafter no mining activities took place and only the activities of dressing of granite excavated already into blocks, marketing and transportation of blocks with valid transport permits took place from 2008 up to 31.3.2012. 5.4. While things stood thus, the respondent, through its provisional attachment order dated 30.10.2017, attached the property belonging to the petitioner on the ground that the said property is the proceeds of crime and that it is involved in the act of money laundering. The basis for attachment is F.I.R.No.183 of 2012 and the evaluation report quantified the loss as Rs. 46.53 Crores. Subsequently, a complaint before the adjudicating authority was filed by the respondent on 14.11.2017 and the order of provisional attachment dated 30.10.2017 was confirmed on 17.4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the complaint based on the above documents amounts to overreaching the proceedings in W.P.No.16841 of 2014. (j) The complaint of the respondent refers to the evaluation report which report has been discarded by the Government and the Chief Secretary of the State has gone on affidavit claiming that they are not relying upon the documents and that they are approaching the Indian Bureau of Mines and Geological Survey of India to give their views on these reports of inspection by evaluation team and recovery of evaluation percentage for taking further course of action. Without authentic stand of the State Government, the respondent cannot expect the court to act upon a document discarded by the Government and claim it to be gospel of truth. Such conduct of the respondent amounts to perjury. (k) The trial court ought to have considered that there is no offence made out even going by the admitted document which is filed before it and ought not to have taken cognizance of the private complaint filed by the respondent under Section 45(1) read with Section 3, 4 and 8(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. (l) The trial court ought to have seen the proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... illegally dug multi-coloured granite stone, they caused loss to the Government exchequer and gained huge profit. Without leaving a gap as stated in the government orders, they carried out mining work by using explosive substances in an illegal manner and caused huge loss to the Government to the extent of Rs. 449.55 Crores and correspondingly enriched themselves. The final report states that there is a prima facie case for continuing investigations under the PMLA. 6.3. It is stated that the quarry of RR Granites, a partnership company of P.Rajasekaran and C.Rabeek Raja, an accused company in FIR No.183 of 2012 at Survey Nos.209/3F, 209/4A, 209/4B2, 209/4B3, 209/4B4, 209/4B5, 211/3, 211/4A, 213/1, 213/3, 213/4A, 213/9A, 213/9B, 215/10, 215/11A, 215/11C, 216/7A2, 216/9B of Malampatti Village to the extent of 3.76.0 hectares was inspected by a team led by the Assistant Director, Geology and Mining and Deputy Director, Geology and Mining, Chennai, wherein they noticed and reported various general violations and submitted a report stating that the petitioner has indulged in illicit quarrying of granite to the tune of 23262.59 M³. 6.4. It is also stated that, from the investi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s under the PMLA. Therefore, a provisional attachment order dated 30.10.2017 was issued by the respondent attaching the immovable properties which includes the quarry lands along with structures therein, available. Subsequently, a complaint before the adjudicating authority has been filed on 14.11.2017 by the complainant and the adjudicating authority after hearing both sides, had confirmed the provisional attachment vide its order dated 17.4.2018. 6.7. It is further asserted that a prosecution complaint in C.C.No.9 of 2018 has been filed against the Panneer Mohammed and 14 others before the Principal District Judge at Madurai and the case has been transferred to the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases and the Special Court had issued summons dated 21.12.2018 to all the parties for their appearance on 18.1.2019. The summons were served and all the accused appeared on 18.1.2019 and the trial is in progress. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the predicate offence in FIR No.156 of 2012 has been registered by the District Crime Branch for the offences punishable under IPC, Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anite has been retained by the petitioner in such and such place between such and such time or the respondent has to state that 23,262 M³ was sold by the petitioner to some persons, out of which, the petitioner earned a sum, which is held by the petitioner either in the form of cash or property and the respondent has to give the details of such property as well. Simply stating that illegal mining has been done by the petitioner does not constitute an offence under the PMLA, which is focused only on the proceeds of the crime and not the crime itself. 7.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner's role is also mentioned in paragraph 10.4. As per the version of the respondent, the offence committed by the petitioner is the acquisition of property, where the alleged illegal mining was done. The respondent incorrectly noted in paragraph 10.4 that the acquisition of the property was by Document No.2111 of 2004, dated 29.6.2004. In fact, the said document is the lease deed for mining and not the sale deed. The purchase of the property is on 31.1.2000, much prior to the date of commission of the illegal mining, which, according to the respondent and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Rajasekaran, 4th accused in C.C.No.9 of 2018 and Bannari Amman Sugars Limited. 8.2. He would further submit that actually Document No.2111 of 2004 is a lease agreement dated 29.6.2004 between Madurai Collector and RR Granites, represented by R.Rajasekaran admeasuring 3.76.0 hectares for mining granite in Survey Nos.209/3F, 209/4A, 209/4B2, 209/4B3, 209/4B4, 209/4B5, 211/3, 211/4A, 213/1 213/3, 213/4A, 213/9A, 233/9B, 215/10, 215/11A, 215/11C, 216/7A2 and 216/9B located at Malampatti Village. The lands located in these survey numbers are the same as that of the sale deed dated 31.1.2000 except Survey Nos.209/3A, 209/3C, 209/4B. 209/4C. This land is nothing but the land in dispute used for illegal mining activity as mentioned in FIR No.183 of 2012 registered against RR Granites and its partners. 8.3. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India also submitted that the interpretation of the petitioner has no relevance in the subject issue. In fact, P.Rajasekaran executed the lease deed dated 29.6.2004 as a Managing Partner of RR Granites, where Rabeek Raja is also one of the partners. FIR No.183 of 2012 is one of the five FIRs registered by Madurai District Police, where the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the crime originated should also have been committed after the PMLA came into force. It is the laundering aspect of the proceeds of crime, which is mischief, that the PMLA targets. Section 3 of the PMLA criminalises the possession/conversion of tainted proceeds of crime and not the generation of proceeds of crime from the predicate offence. Therefore, if the predicate offence is committed prior to the PMLA came into force, it cannot be said that Section 3 of the PMLA is retrospective in operation. Since the property mentioned in the two documents, namely lease deed and the sale deed, was used to generate proceeds of crime by illegal mining activity and possessed by RR Granites, where Rajasekaran is Managing Partner, it was attached by the impugned provisional attachment order dated 30.10.2017 and confirmed by the adjudicating authority under order dated 17.4.2018. Since the complaint contains specific allegation against the petitioner and more particularly paragraph 4.5.3 of the complaint constitutes ingredients of the offence and reading the contents of paragraph 10.4 along with the other allegations, the offences alleged against the petitioner have been made out by the responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laint is accepted in entirety, do not disclose commission of any offence and the continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. There is no quarrel in respect of that proposition and it has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, that if the case falls in anyone of the categories, then the High Court could intervene and quash the proceedings, as it amounts to abuse of process of law. 12. The primordial contention in seeking to quash the complaint is that the petitioner has purchased the property, measuring 3.76.0 hectares of land in Malampatti Village, Melur Taluk on 31.01.2000 from one Bannari Amman Sugars. Only thereafter pursuant to the application filed, the government, by order dated 27.02.2001 granted the transfer of quarry lease from Bannari Amman Sugars to the petitioner through two government orders. The petitioner got the mining lease renewed on 29.06.2004 and carried out mining operations. Since the period of illegality mentioned in the predicate offence is between 2001 to 2012 and the property having been acquired prior to the said period in 2000 itself, the acquis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he offences specified under Part C of the Schedule] Section 3. Offence of money-laundering. - Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the [proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. [Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,- (i) a person shall be guilty of offence of moneylaundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, namely:- (a) concealment; or (b) possession; or (c) acquisition; or (d) use; or (e) projecting as untainted property; or (f) claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever; (ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... linked to criminal activity relating to or relatable to scheduled offence, must be regarded as proceeds of crime for the purpose of the 2002 Act. To be proceeds of crime, the property must be derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, "as a result of" criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. 21. The relevant portion of the aforesaid decision, is extracted as under; "105. The other relevant definition is "proceeds of crime" in Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act. This definition is common to all actions under the Act, namely, attachment, adjudication and confiscation being civil in nature as well as prosecution or criminal action. The original provision prior to amendment vide the Finance Act, 2015 and Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, took within its sweep any property [mentioned in Section 2(1)(v) PMLA] derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person "as a result of" criminal activity "relating to" a scheduled offence [mentioned in Section 2(1)(y) read with Schedule to the Act] or the value of any such property. Vide the Finance Act, 2015, it further included such property (being proceeds of crime) which is taken or held outside the country, then the proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heduled offence may be attached as property in the case (crime) concerned, it may still not be proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act. Similarly, possession of unaccounted property acquired by legal means may be actionable for tax violation and yet, will not be regarded as proceeds of crime unless the tax legislation concerned prescribes such violation as an offence and such offence is included in the Schedule to the 2002 Act. For being regarded as proceeds of crime, the property associated with the scheduled offence must have been derived or obtained by a person "as a result of" criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence concerned. This distinction must be borne in mind while reckoning any property referred to in the scheduled offence as proceeds of crime for the purpose of the 2002 Act. Dealing with proceeds of crime by way of any process or activity constitutes offence of money laundering under Section 3 PMLA." 22. Now we would proceed to analyse the facts of the present case. Based on a complaint that there had been indiscriminate illegal quarrying of granites causing huge loss to the exchequer in Madurai District, five FIRs came to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpany of Shri P.Rajasekaran and Shri C.Rabeek Raja, an Accused Company in FIR No 183/2012 at Survey No.209/3F, 209/4A, 209/4B2, 209/4B3, 209/4B4, 209/4B5, 211/3, 211/4A, 213/1, 213/3, 213/4A, 213/9A, 213/9B, 215/10, 215/11A, 215/11C, 216/7A2, 216/9B of Malampatti Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District to the extent of 3.76.0 Hectares was inspected by a team led by Assistant Director, Geology & Mining & Deputy Director, Geology & Mining, Chennai wherein they have noticed and reported, inter alia, the various General Violations they have noticed during their inspection. The Inspection team categorically quantified the following: (Cub.Met) (In Rs) A Total Volume of Granite Quarried in the Lease Hold Area 23436.25 B Total Stock available in the Leasehold Area 2066.67 C Quantity of Granite Transported from the Lease hold Area (A- B) 21369.58 D Allowance @ 10% for block Dressing (Rejects) 2136.96 E Marketable Quantity (C-D) 19232.62 F Quantity for which Transport Permits obtained 5644.325 G Quantity of granite transported illegally (E-F) 135....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in his name along with the Income Returns filed by him immediately." 28. The verification of records and properties are listed out in paragraph 4.7.2. It is stated that the verifications conducted with Sub- Registrar Offices of Tamilnadu, disclosed that C.Rabeek Raja, partner of M/s.RR Granites is possessing 127 immovable properties, totally valued at Rs. 4.41 crores as per the sale deed documents, for which the guideline value as prescribed by the State is calculated to the tune of Rs. 36.38 crores. Apart from the same, paragraphs 4.7.3, 4.7.4, 4.7.5 and 4.7.6 deal with the income and properties of the wife and sons of C.Rabeek Raja, partner of M/s.RR Granites. 29. The identification of proceeds of crime involved in moneylaundering and reasons to believe against the petitioner, are furnished in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint, which read as under; "5. From the investigation as set out above, it is clearly evident that the persons accused in the FIRs/Charge Sheets, viz., Shri C.Panneer Mohamed, Proprietor of M/s Madurai Granite Exports, Shri C.Rabeek Raja, Proprietor of M.R. Granites and partner of R.R.Granites, Smt. R.Kasaniya, Shri C. Nagoor Hanifa, Shri C.Az....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- X 5.45 = Rs. 22,59,025 /- 3. 183/2012 Shri P.Rajasekaran For M/s R.R. Granites Vide Document No. 2111/2004 dated 29.06.2004 3.76.0 hectare of Land in Malampatti Village of Melur Taluk Total extent of the Land = 3.76.0 Hectare (9.29 Acres) Guideline Value of the Land is Rs. 268000 /- per Acre. Arrived Value = Rs. 268000 /- X 9.29 = Rs. 24,89,720 /- 4. 397/2013 Shri.C.Panneer Mohammed S/o V.R.Chellakannu Rowther. Vide Document No.697/2004 dt. 10.03.2004 0.96.5 Hectare of Land in Thiruvathavur Village of Melur Taluk Total extent of the Land = 0.96.5 Hectare (9650 Sq.Mt.) Guideline Value of the Land is Rs. 365/- per Sq.Mt. Arrived Value = Rs. 365/- X 9650 = Rs. 35,22,250 /- 5. 19/2015 Shri.C.Anwar Ali S/o V.R.Chellakannu Rowther. Vide Document No.934/2003 Dt.30.03.2004 1.11.5 Hcetare of Land in Keelaiyur Village of Melur Taluk Total extent of the Land = 1.11.5 Hectare Guide Line Value of the Land is Rs. 580000 /- per Hectare. Arrived Value = Rs. 580000 /- X 1.11.5 = Rs. 6,46,700 /- 6. Further, the pecuniary benefits obtained illegally by the aforesaid persons were re-invested in acquisition of the immovable properties in their own names a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act,1908, which are Scheduled Offences by virtue of Section 2(1)(x) & (2)(1)(y) of the Act, under Paragraph 1 as well as Paragraph 3 of Part A of the Schedule to the PMLA, 2002. The 108 immovable properties acquired by Shri C.Rabeek Raja (Accused No.2 herein), which have been identified as the proceeds of crime derived out of commission of Scheduled offences as mentioned above and have been attached from his possession vide Provisional Attachment Order No.21/2017 dated 30.10.2017, are being projected by him as untainted, which is nothing but an act of laundering the proceeds of crime derived by him. While immovable properties totally valued at Rs. 4,11,18,450/- as per the registered documents, the guideline value as prescribed by the Government is estimated to be Rs. 36,35,58,578/-. Accordingly it stands to reason that the above said 108 immovable properties in the name of Shri C.Rabeek Raja, are nothing but proceeds of crime which are involved in Money Laundering. Shri C.Rabeek Raja has directly indulged and actually involved in the money laundering activity connected with the proceeds of crime derived by him, including its concealment, possessio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PMLA, 2002 and has been guilty of offence of money laundering under Section 2(1)(p) r/w Section 3 of PMLA, 2002, punishable under Section 4 of the said Act." 31. The provisional attachment of properties involved in money laundering has been furnished in paragraph 7 containing III schedules. Schedule-I contains 5 properties, out of which item 3 pertains to the property in the name of the petitioner. There are 108 properties listed in schedule III B in the name of C.Rabeek Raja, partner of M/s.RR Granites and several other properties listed in the names of wife and sons of C.Rabeek Raja. 32. As per the averments in paragraph 5 of the complaint under the identification of proceeds of crime involved in money-laundering and reasons to believe, it is stated that the accused persons in the predicate offence C.Rabeek Raja, partner of M/s.RR Granites, P.Rajasekaran along with other accused persons, have committed 'scheduled offences' as defined under 2(1)(x) r/w 2(1)(y) of PMLA in the illegal quarrying of granite blocks and had caused loss to the tune of Rs. 450 Crores to the Government exchequer [Rs.46.53 Crores] in respect of the petitioner in Crime No.183/2012. 33. By committing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quarry lands available in the name of the petitioner which is listed as item 3 were used to generate and launder the crime proceeds and therefore the property is involved in money-laundering and is liable for attachment. As such, even though the petitioner had purchased the property through sale deed on 31.01.2000, which is prior to the period 2001 to 2012, during which the illegalities had happened in respect of the predicate offence, the date mentioned as 29.06.2004 is the renewal obtained by the petitioner in respect of the property listed in item 3. 37. When the averments states that the proceeds of crime were used to generate and launder the crime proceeds through purchase of immovable properties as well as in procuring mining licences, the contention of the petitioner that simply because the property was purchased prior to 2001, the petitioner could not be implicated for an offence under the PMLA is misplaced. Even assuming that the petitioner had purchased this property as on 31.01.2000 itself, the fact remains that the petitioner had obtained a mining lease in respect of this property on 29.06.2004. When the complaint specifically states that the proceeds of crime had be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the crime proceeds by the petitioner and as such, he is involved in money-laundering, which resulted in the attachment of the property through provisional attachment order No.21/2017 dated 30.10.2017 and therefore the petitioner had been knowingly a party to the activities connected with the proceeds of crime and committed the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. 42. When the complaint, on the face of it prima facie discloses offence under the Act and the details have been furnished by the respondent department in the complaint, the complaint has to be read as a whole and the petitioner cannot read it in-part to suit his convenience. The complaint, apart from stating that the properties were used to generate the proceeds of crime, had also stated that it is used to launder the proceeds of crime. When the details of the lease is also given, which admittedly falls within the period from 2001 to 2012 covered in the predicate offence, the same is sufficient and all other details could be gone into only during the trial. 43. When the sufficient averments and materials are prima facie available in the complaint, the special court has rightly taken cognizance. It is not a case wher....