Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Quashing of Proceedings Under PML Act Due to Involvement in Bribery. Respondent's Intent to Bribe Established Connection to Proceeds of Crime Under Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal by the Directorate of Enforcement against a High Court decision that quashed proceedings against Padmanabhan Kishore under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act). The respondent was accused of paying a bribe of Rs.50,00,000 to a public servant, Andasu Ravinder, which led to a CBI investigation and subsequent charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court ruled that the money could not be considered tainted while in the hands of the respondent, as it only became proceeds of crime once accepted by the public servant. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the respondent's intent to bribe established his involvement in the proceeds of crime, thus allowing the Enforcement Directorate's proceedings to continue. The court emphasized that the requisite intent to commit bribery must precede the act of handing over the money, and that the respondent's actions fell within the scope of the PML Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed that the respondent be proceeded against in accordance with law.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Money Laundering - Definition of Proceeds of Crime - The definition of 'proceeds of crime' includes property derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 2(1)(u) - The court held that the respondent's involvement in the transaction constituted a connection to proceeds of crime, thus allowing proceedings under the PML Act (Paras 12-20).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondent can be proceeded against under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed that the respondent continue to be proceeded against under the PML Act.

Law Points

  • Prevention of Money Laundering Act
  • 2002
  • definition of proceeds of crime
  • role of bribe giver
  • intent in bribery
  • judicial review of High Court decisions
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (SC) (10) 115

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.............. OF 2022

2022-10-31

Uday Umesh Lalit, Bela M. Trivedi

Balbir Singh, S. Nagamuthu

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

PADMANABHAN KISHORE

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against quashing of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Remedy Sought

The Directorate of Enforcement sought to continue proceedings against Padmanabhan Kishore.

Filing Reason

The High Court quashed proceedings initiated under the PML Act.

Previous Decisions

The High Court ruled that the respondent could not be considered connected to proceeds of crime.

Issues

Whether the respondent can be proceeded against under the PML Act. Whether the money in question was tainted while in the hands of the respondent.

Submissions/Arguments

The respondent argued that the money was not tainted until received by the public servant. The appellant contended that the respondent's intent to bribe established his connection to proceeds of crime.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the intent to commit bribery is crucial in determining the character of the money involved, and that the respondent's actions fell within the definition of proceeds of crime under the PML Act.

Judgment Excerpts

The prosecution of Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) under the PML Act, in our considered opinion, is misconceived. The view taken by the High Court that the respondent cannot be held liable for the offence under the PML Act is thus completely incorrect.

Procedural History

The High Court quashed proceedings under the PML Act, leading to the present appeal by the Directorate of Enforcement.

Acts & Sections

  • Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: 2(1)(u), 3, 4
  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on Sales Tax Interest Liability — Clarifies Conditions for Tax Deferral. The court found that the appellant was liable for interest on deferred sales tax as the conditions for exemption were not satisfied under Sectio...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Bonded Labour Case Due to Insufficient Evidence Linking Him to Offences. Conviction Reversed as High Court Erred in Presuming Guilt Based on Business Name and Familial Relationship, but Fine Liability Imposed on Estat...