TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 164
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, which facilitated large scale unauthorized construction in various parts of Delhi. It was with initiation of enquiry in pursuance to the directions of Delhi High Court and later on based on the recommendation in the enquiry, an FIR was registered on 27.07.2006 for the offence under Section 120-B and 420 IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was registered naming Avinash Chandra Garg, the then Executive Engineer (Bldg), Sadar Paharganj Zone, Delhi, S.A. Khan, the then Assistant Engineer (Bldg), Sadar Paharganj Zone, Delhi and other unknown officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 3. It was alleged that Avinash Chandra Garg and other MCD officials were indulged in unauthorized retention of files relating to unauthorized construction and by way of this, they allowed unauthorized construction in spite of an order for demolition being passed. Shri Avinash Chandra Garg was thereupon dismissed from service and subsequently compulsorily retired. He had, in an unauthorized manner, retained 15 files related to the unauthorized construction at different premises in the jurisdictional area of the zone. This was including the files ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant along with Avinash Chandra Aggarwal and others. It is with further admission that appellant was later on convicted for the predicate offence. The fairness of the counsel is appreciated. 7. The only issue remains to challenge the impugned order largely on the ground is that the predicate offence for which FIR was registered was not one of the offence in the Schedule appended to the Act of 2002 at the relevant time of commission of the offence. The learned counsel for the appellant thus prayed for causing interference in the impugned order on the ground aforesaid. 8. The counsel for the appellant did not raise any other argument, other than to clarify that the offence alleged to have been committed by the appellant was not a continuing offence and, therefore, ECIR could not have been recorded in the year 2015 for a predicate offence which was not part of the Schedule at the time of commission of offence. Arguments of counsel for the respondents: 9. The counsel for the respondents contested the issue on all the grounds taken by the appellant. Elaborate argument was made by the counsel. It would be referred while recording finding on each issue raised by the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant remained beneficiary of inaction by Avinash Chandra Garg, the then Chief Engineer of MCD. To continue with a criminal conspiracy, another sale deed was executed on 30.11.2005 between Naresh Kumar Sekhri and Sri Kishan Vashist in order to further disguise the sale of entire built-up property after taking consideration of Rs.2.25 Lakhs said to have been paid in cash. In fact, the property was in possession of 18 different tenants and CBI investigation established that the said building was under construction during the period of November. In any case, the act and omission of the appellant gave rise to the continuing offence. It is, therefore, only the ECIR was recorded in 2015 in reference to the predicate offence. The ECIR has not been quashed in any of the proceedings on the ground raised by the appellant i.e. at the time of commission of offence, it was not predicate offence thus ECIR could not have been recorded, rather ECIR is still alive, coupled with the fact that the appellant has been convicted, apart from others for the predicate offence. When the ECIR has not been quashed, I cannot cause interference in the impugned order on the ground urged by the appellant. It i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er: "43. .....In other words, the criminal activity may have been committed before the same had been notified as scheduled offence for the purpose of the 2002 Act, but if a person has indulged in or continues to indulge directly or indirectly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived or obtained from such criminal activity even after it has been notified as scheduled offence, may be liable to be prosecuted for offence of money-laundering under the 2002 Act- for continuing to possess or conceal the proceeds of crime (fully or in part) or retaining possession thereof or uses it in trenches until fully exhausted. The offence of money-laundering is not dependent on or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence or if we may say so the predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime " The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma vs Department of Enforcement, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 560, while dealing with the case of an Applicant who canvassed an identical submission that during the period of commissioning of the act, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omy and thus if the accused commits any of the acts as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA 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 PMLA. The court held thus: XXX 5. The appellant/petitioners assailed the act of the Enforcement Directorate on the ground that penalising a person for any act done in the past on the basis of subsequent legislation is prohibited by Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. In fact, going by the pleadings and records produced [11:25 am, 21/5/2026] Sita Ram Dherr: before us, it appears that the appellant/petitioners are not being proceeded against under the PMLA for any criminal act done by them before the commencement of the PMLA. In relation to an act done by a person before the commencement of the PMLA or the amendment to its schedule, the penal consequences will follow only if the accused uses/puts into circulation the tainted money obtained by the past act, or when he projects that it is untainted money or when he does any other acts as defined ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rosecution under the PML Act. What would be relevant in the context of prosecution is the time of commission of the act of money laundering. The question would be, whether a person involved in money laundering as provided under Section 3 of the PML Act has indulged in the said act or not has to be decided by the competent authority. What is the date of laundering of money will have to be decided on facts of each case and there cannot be any prescribed straight jacket formula. This is an important fact which the authority will have to examine and it is a mixed question of law and fact. 78. A person acquiring assets through illegal means who comes before the society and claims that said money was acquired by proper means, then he would be guilty of the offence of money laundering. A person might have committed an offence long back and the proceeds of it is being placed, layered or sought to be integrated to the main stream of economy, then also, he is said to have committed the offence of money laundering. Incorporation of certain offences in the Schedule is to bring it within the net of PML Act namely, proceeds of that crime within the provisions of the Act. For constitutin....