The Jharkhand High Court held that presumption under section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) can be rebutted only at the stage of trial and upheld the rejection of the discharge petition.
Kumar Pranav, the petitioner challenged the quashing of the order dated 01.12.2018 passed whereby and whereunder, the discharge petition has been rejected. The petitioner becomes one of the Directors of M/s Classic Coal Construction Ltd after he became a major in 2009.
The work agreement entered between M/s Classic Coal Construction Ltd. and RCD Engineers Ltd for the widening and strengthening of Chakradharpur Kharsawan Road. Later the construction in pursuance of the work order was completed. The final bill of Rs.59,70,615/- was paid for the executed work.
It was alleged that after the final payment of executed work, the plot measuring an area of 13 decimal in the district of Ramgrah was purchased in the name of the petitioner for a considerable amount of Rs. 6 Lakh and odd after six years of the execution of the work contract and final payment. The attachment of the property has been appealed and now the order of confirmation has been stayed by the appellate authority under Section 25 of PMLA.
It was submitted that the turnover of that financial year was more than Rs. 42 Crore and the income after payment of tax was Rs. 1,05,21,900/-.
The Enforcement Directorate opposed the petition and submitted that the crime proceeds involve the total sum of Rs.8,96,85,595/- out of which the worth property of Rs.2.08 Crore has been attached which includes the plot of land in the name of the petitioner.
It was also submitted that the offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is standalone and it is not necessary for a person accused of the offence of money laundering to be an accused for the predicate offence.
Whether the property purchased in the name of the petitioner was part of the proceeds of crime or not, is a question of fact which cannot be decided at this stage and that too, while hearing the revision petition.
It was viewed that the Petitioner became a salaried director in the year 2010 and after the death of his father on 27.03.2013 he became the Managing Director and inherited the assets and liabilities of the Company.
In the case of Union of India v. Hassan Ali Khan, it was held that allegations may not ultimately be established, but having been made, the burden of proof that the monies were not the proceeds of crime and were not, therefore, tainted shifted on the accused persons under Section 24 of the PML Act, 2002.
A Single Bench comprising Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed that the presumption under Section 24 of the PML Act can be rebutted only at the stage of trial and not at the stage of framing of charge.
“Nexus if any, between the properties acquired in the name of this petitioner and the proceeds of crime is a question of fact to be looked into at the stage of trial and not at the stage of discharge”, the Court held while dismissing the appeal.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
