The division judge bench of Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi in the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs Padmanabhan Kishore held that the requisite intent would always be at the core before the amount is handed over.
Such intent having been entertained well before the amount is actually handed over, the person concerned would certainly be involved in the process or activity connected with “proceeds of crime” including inter alia, the aspects of possession or acquisition thereof.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the present writ petition is filed by the respondent herein seeking the quashing of proceedings initiated against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. According to the FIR, the respondent allegedly gave a public servant a sum of Rs. 50,00,000 (Rupees fifty lakhs only). This transaction and the circumstances surrounding it led to the filing of a crime under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 7, 12, and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Enforcement Directorate afterward filed a case under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act against the accused, including the respondent.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the amount in question could not be considered to be corrupt money while it was in the respondent's possession; it only acquired this character after it was received by the public official. As a result, the respondent could not be considered to be associated with the proceeds of crime and could not be prosecuted under the PML Act's provisions.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that it is true that so long as the amount is in the hands of a bribe giver, and till it does not get impressed with the requisite intent and is actually handed over as a bribe, it would definitely be untainted money. If the money is handed over without such intent, it would be a mere entrustment. If it is thereafter appropriated by the public servant, the offence would be of misappropriation or species thereof but certainly not of bribe. The crucial part therefore is the requisite intent to hand over the amount as bribe and normally such intent must necessarily be antecedent or prior to the moment the amount is handed over.
Thus, the requisite intent would always be at the core before the amount is handed over. Such intent having been entertained well before the amount is actually handed over, the person concerned would certainly be involved in the process or activity connected with “proceeds of crime” including inter alia, the aspects of possession or acquisition thereof. By handing over money with the intent of giving bribe, such person will be assisting or will knowingly be a party to an activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Without such active participation on part of the person concerned, the money would not assume the character of being proceeds of crime.
The relevant expressions from Section 3 of the PML Act are thus wide enough to cover the role played by such person. Furthermore, the view taken by the High Court that the respondent cannot be held liable for the offence under the PML Act is thus completely incorrect. Consequently, the respondent shall continue to be arrayed and proceeded against in accordance with law registered by the Enforcement Directorate.
CASE NAME- Directorate of Enforcement Vs Padmanabhan Kishore
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO………….. OF 2022
CORUM- CJI Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
DATE- 31.10.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
