Karnataka High Court
The Directorate Of Enforcement vs Sri Chandrashekar Kakkeri on 7 September, 2023
Bench: S Rachaiah
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:32284
CRL.RP No. 1224 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1224 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
Digitally THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
signed by N REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
UMA
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Location:
HIGH MINSITRY OF FINANCE
COURT OF DEPT. OF REVENUE
KARNATAKA
3RD FLOOR, 'B' BLOCK
BMTC, SHANTHINAGAR
KH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR KAKKERI
S/O.LATE AMARAPPA KAKKERI
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.213/1
"ASWINI NILAYA", NGO COLONY
JEVARGI ROAD, KALBURGI - 585 101.
2. SMT BASAVERAJESWARI
W/O. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR KAKKERI
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.213/1
ASWINI NILAYA, NGO COLONY
JEVARGI ROAD, KALBURGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B G CHIDANANDA URS, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397(1) R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.08.2018 PASSED
BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:32284
CRL.RP No. 1224 of 2018
DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU IN SPECIAL CASE NO.55/2017
AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of
discharge of the respondents / accused Nos.1 and 2, passed on
10.08.2018 in Special Case No.55/2017 by the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, for the
offence punishable under Section 3 r/w Section 4 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PML Act'),
has preferred this revision petition.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, respondent
Nos.1 and 2 stated to have committed offence under Section 3
of the PML Act. It is further stated that, respondent No.1
stated to have demanded illegal gratification from Shri Kallappa
Yadav. The said demand was a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs. The said
Kallappa Yadav being not satisfied with the demand of illegal
gratification had lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta
Police, Kalaburagi. As per the averments of the complaint,
NC: 2023:KHC:32284
CRL.RP No. 1224 of 2018
amount of Rs.4 Lakhs stated to have been received by
respondent No.2. The Investigating Officer Shri Maheshwar
Gowda suspecting that, the respondent No.1 has received huge
amount as illegal gratification, obtained permission from the
Jurisdictional Superintendent of Police to conduct raid. On raid
being conducted, disproportionate assets worth of
Rs.71,51,510/- was found. Therefore, case came to be
registered against the respondents. The Lokayukta Police after
conducting the investigation submitted the charge sheet.
3. In the meantime, the Directorate of Enforcement
registered ECIR No.01/BGZO/2016 dated 09.02.2016, against
respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under
Section 3 of the PML Act. After conducting investigation, after
conducting investigation, submitted the charge-sheet.
4. The respondents have preferred an application
under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short
'Cr.P.C.') seeking for discharge of the offence under the PML
Act. In spite of detailed objection having been filed by the
petitioner herein before the Trial Court, the Trial Court allowed
the petition and discharged the respondents under the Act.
NC: 2023:KHC:32284
CRL.RP No. 1224 of 2018
5. Heard Sri Unnikrishnan M, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri B G Chidananda Urs, learned counsel for the
respondents.
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that, the order of discharge passed by the Trial Court
appears to be erroneous. Mere acquittal of respondent Nos.1
and 2 in connection with criminal case for the offence under
Sections 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for
short 'PC Act'), cannot be absolved from being proceeded
against the respondents under the Act. Making such
submission, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to set aside
the order dated 10.08.2018 in Special Case No.55/2017 on the
file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K.
Mangaluru.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
justifying the discharge of the respondents under the PML Act
and submits that, the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & Others v.
UNION OF INDIA & Others1 made applicable to the case on
2022 SCC Online SC 929
NC: 2023:KHC:32284
CRL.RP No. 1224 of 2018
hand. As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, once
the predicated offence gets acquitted, the continuation under
the PML Act would not survive. Making such submission,
learned counsel for the respondent prays to dismiss the
petition.
8. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsels for the respective parties, it is appropriate to
have a look upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
before being adverted into the facts of the case.
9. Having regard to the submission of learned counsel
for the respondents in connection with the dictum of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, now, it is relevant to refer judgment in
the case of VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY stated supra, para
No.187(d) reads thus:
"(d) The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is
dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of
criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is
concerning the process or activity connected with
such property, which constitutes the offence of
money- laundering. The Authorities under the 2002
Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or
on the assumption that a scheduled offence has
been committed, unless it is so registered with
NC: 2023:KHC:32284
CRL.RP No. 1224 of 2018
the jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial
including by way of criminal complaint before the
competent forum. If the person is finally
discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the
criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of
competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of
money-laundering against him or any one claiming
such property being the property linked to stated
scheduled offence through him."
On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
it makes it very clear that, when the respondents were
acquitted for the scheduled offence, continuation of offences
under PML Act would be considered as abuse of process of law.
In the present case, the PML Act arising out of Special Case
No.6/2015 which was registered under Section 13(1)(e) r/w
13(2) of PC Act, 1988. Learned counsel for the respondents
made available the judgment of acquittal dated 21.04.2017 in
Special Case No.6/2015 on the file of the Special Judge
(Lokayukta) and Principal Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi,
wherein the Trial Court acquitted the respondents for the above
said offences. Therefore, the order of discharge of the
respondents passed by the Trial Court appears to be
appropriate and there is no occasion for this Court to interfere
with the order of discharge.
NC: 2023:KHC:32284
CRL.RP No. 1224 of 2018
10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSS
