R. Dorairaj Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that money laundering offense is independent from predicate offense. Thus, conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act and subsequent Prevention of Money Laundering Act prosecution doesn’t constitute double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
Facts- First appellant during the check period viz., 01.01.2002 to 30.09.2009 was working with Food Corporation of India, Chennai holding various positions including that of Deputy General Manager, while the second appellant was working as Senior Accountant in the Office of the Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements), Tamil Nadu. Based on reliable information, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch registered a case alleging that Appellants had acquired assets and pecuniary resources disproportionate to their known sources of income.
The present appeal is filed challenging the order passed by XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, whereby, appellants were convicted for offences under Section 3 and 4 of PMLA r/w. Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Conclusion- Held that it is discernible that appellants were convicted for predicate offence under Section 3 and 4 of PMLA read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of PCA and Section 120B of IPC. The proceeds of such crime was used in construction of multi-storied building, which clearly establishes that the appellants were directly involved in possession, acquisition and use of the entire building thereby attracting the wrath of Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. We find that the Trial Court has in fact found that the prosecution has established and proved through oral and documentary evidence that accused have committed the offence u/s 3 of PML Act, punishable u/s 4 of PML Act, and therefore, the accused are found guilty of the offence under Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 only on considering the above material on record. We agree with the findings of the Trial Court and are of the view that the impugned order does not warrant interference.
