The Madras High Court has quashed a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by the Enforcement Directorate ( ED ) against DMK MP S Jagathrakshakan.
A case was registered against Jagathrakshakan forgery and cheating. The CB-CID had filed a closure report on the ground of mistake of fact. Later the CB- CID filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate which was rejected. In an appeal application filed the Additional District and Sessions Judge allowed the CB-CID’s contention and ordered for further investigation.
While so, since the First Information Reports disclosed commission of a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case and issued summons to the petitioner under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for his appearance, challenging which, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
The Madras High Court quashed an ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) filed against S. Jagathrakshakan,who represents the Arakkonam constituency. The ECIR was registered by Enforcement Directorate (ED) against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on June 12, 2020, based on two FIRs filed by the CB-CID. The CB-CID accused, the MP of usurping properties owned by the Chrome Leather Company, and filed the two FIRS in 2016 in connection with the case.
The Division Bench consisting of Justices P N Prakash and RMT Teekaa Raman noted that a Single Judge Bench of the High Court hadquashed the two FIRs registered by the CB-CID and therefore the ED could also not proceed with its ECIR in view of a recent verdict pronounced by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others.
In Vijay Madanlal’s case, the Apex Court ruled that “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.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
