“Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases can render the criminal adjudication as an exercise in futility” – Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
The Jharkhand High Court upheld the conviction of Former Minister of Anosh Ekka under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Anosh Ekka, the appelllant is a Politician and ex Cabinet Minister of Jharkhand Government. At present Anosh Ekka is holding the post of National President (Supremo) of Jharkhand Party. Anosh Ekka is very popular and famous politician of Jharkhand and he was the member of Jharkhand Legislative Assembly from 2005 to 2018.
The appeal is preferred against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special judge,whereby and where under, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The Court sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and for a fine of Rs. 2 Crores and in default of payment of fine, one year Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) in additional has been imposed. There is further direction for confiscation/forfeiture of the tainted money/properties of the convict of Rs.22 crores.
The complainant made allegation of criminal conspiracy, misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, cheating forgery fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration amount and to have acquired assets disproportionate to his known lawful source of income and also to have acquired lands in violation of C.N.T. Act in the name of his wife Smt Menon Ujjana Ekka.
It is argued on behalf of the appellant that since both the cases i.e. the present case under PMLA and that under PC Act arise out of the same transaction, therefore, the benefit of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C should have been extended to the appellant.
Considering the gravity of offence and the position of responsibility as held by the appellant the Bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed that “Appellant in the present case was none other than an elected representative of the people, who was reposed with faith to discharge his constitutional obligations with the highest degree of probity. Unfortunately, power blinded his wisdom and he indulged in rampant corruption by acquiring movable and immovable property much beyond his known sources of income.”
“The proceeds of crime under a grand design and various contrivances, were projected as untainted by the process of money laundering. The nature of crime, post held by the appellant, does not justify any leniency in sentencing” the Court said.
The Court lashed at the appellant and observed that these are species of crime that strike at the financial foundation of the State and the convict does not deserve any clemency so that the deterrent effect of punishment is not completely diluted. Accordingly, the order of confiscation of crime proceeds is also affirmed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
