Telangana High Court

Shri Manturi Shashi Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 25 September, 2023

Bench: K.Surender

       HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                     AT HYDERABAD
                           *****

Criminal Petition No.13439 OF 2018

Between:

Shri Manturi Shashi Kumar ... Petitioner/Accused

And

The State of Telangana & others ...Respondents/Complainant

Criminal Petition No.2686 OF 2021 Between:

Kotha Golla Sathaiah ...Petitioner/Accused No.2

And The State of Telangana& others Respondents/Complainant

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 25.09.2023

Submitted for approval.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No Judgments?


  2 Whether the copies of judgment may
    be marked to Law Reporters/Journals                   Yes/No

  3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
    Wish to see their fair copy of the                    Yes/No
    Judgment?


                                                 __________________
                                                  K.SURENDER, J



         * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER

                   + CRL.P. No. 13439 of 2018



 % Dated 25.09.2023

# Shri Manturi Shashi Kumar                   ... Petitioner/Accused

                                     And

$ The State of Telangana & others          Respondents/Complainant

                    + CRL.P. No. 2686 of 2021


# KothaGollaSathaiah                        ...Petitioner/Accused No.2

                                    And

$ The State of Telangana & others          ..Respondents/Complainant

! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Satish Chakravarthy

^ Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor for R1 Sri P.Devender for R2

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1 2022 SCC Online SC 929 2 2011 3 Supreme Court Cases 581

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.13439 & 2686 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER:

1. Criminal Petition No.13439 of 2018 is filed by A1 and

Criminal Petition No.2686 of 2021 is filed by A2 seeking to quash

the proceedings in S.C.No.342 of 2018 on the file of Metropolitan

Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002. Since both the petitioners are accused in the

same case, they are being heard together and disposed by way of

this Common Order.

2. Charge sheet was filed against these petitioners and others by

the Patancheru Police. According to the prosecution, in respect of

purchase of land, the petitioners herein and other accused

projected A3 as real owner of a property and entered into an

agreement of sale. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.40.00

lakhs initially on 20.05.2009 and another Rs.45.00 lakhs on

24.06.2009. The police arrested the accused for defrauding the

complainant. The accused forging the signatures and thumb

impressions of one Shyam Kumar, offered the land for sale and A3

impersonated as the owner Shyam Kumar. Out of the total agreed

amount, Rs.85.00 lakhs was paid. The charge against the accused

was for impersonation and cheating, having entered into criminal

conspiracy and causing wrongful loss to complainant to the extent

of Rs 85 lakhs.

3. The parties however entered into compromise and approached

the concerned Court. Thereafter, these petitioners were acquitted of

the predicate offence.

4. The grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners

are that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India and others 1, the

proceedings against these petitioners under PMLA Act have to be

quashed. Further Division Bench of this Court had set-aside the

attachment of property of the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

Enforcement Directorate would relied on the Judgment of

Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal 2,. Attention was

drawn to paras 38 and 39. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as

follows:

"38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:

(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;

2022 SCC OnLine SC 929

(2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 581

(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;

(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other;

(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;

(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and

(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.

39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court."

6. He further submits that the said judgment was not brought to

the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal

Choudhary's case (supra), as such, the judgment in Vijay

Madanlal Choudhary's case is per incuriam. Further, this Court

had set aside the attachment of the property by the Enforcement

Directorate, however, the ED has filed SLP before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court questioning the orders of this Court in setting side

the attachment orders. In the said circumstances, the proceedings

cannot be quashed placing reliance in the judgment of Vijay

Madanlal Choudhary's case.

7. This Court cannot conclude that the judgment in Vijay

Madanlal Choudhary's case (supra) is per incuriam as argued by

the learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate. The said

ground can only be raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

8. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary's case, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has elaborately discussed the provisions of PML Act. The

object of the Act, powers of officers etc., are all discussed. It was

specifically stated in para 467 of the said judgment, which reads as

follows:

"467.Conclusion:

(i)..(ii)..(iii)..(iv)...(v)(a)...(b)...(c)..

(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 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."

9. The dispute is admittedly between private parties. Though the

complainant was cheated and caused wrongful loss of Rs.85.00

lakhs, however, the parties have reconciled and compromised the

case. The offence of cheating is compoundable offence. On the basis

of the said compromise, the offence was compounded and the

petitioners herein and other accused were acquitted.

10. Article 141 of the Constitution recognizes the doctrine of stare

decisis. The doctrine of stare decisis establishes that the

subordinate courts are bound to follow the decisions pronounced

by the higher courts while dealing with cases with similar legal

issues. Ignoring the ruling of the Honble Supreme Court, is both

judicial indiscipline and also in violation of Article 141 of the