DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT versus PADMANABHAN KISHORE

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT versus PADMANABHAN KISHORE

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO………….. OF 2022

(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2668 OF 2022)

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT …..APPELLANT(S)

versus

PADMANABHAN KISHORE ..RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated

1.3.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ

Petition No. 25670/2019.

3. The aforestated writ petition was filed by the respondent

herein seeking quashing of proceedings initiated against him

under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,

2002 (“PML Act”, for short).

2

4. The basic facts which led to the filing of said writ petition

stand captured in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3 of the judgment under

appeal, as under: -

“2.1 One Andasu Ravinder (A1), IRS, was working as

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. On

intelligence, the Central Bureau of Investigation (for

brevity “the CBI”) checked a car that was parked in front

of the premises of the said Andasu Ravinder's (A1) house

on 29.08.2011 and recovered a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-

in cash. It is alleged that Andasu Ravinder (A1) and one

Uttam Chand Bohra (A3) were in that car at that time.

2.2 During investigation, it came to light that the sum

of Rs.50,00,000/- was handed over to the said Andasu

Ravinder (A1) by one Padmanabhan Kishore (A2),

petitioner herein, whose income tax file was pending

with Andasu Ravinder (A1) for clearance. Since

Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) wanted certain benefits, he

had allegedly paid the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as bribe

to Andasu Ravinder (A1).

2.3 In connection with this seizure, the CBI registered

an FIR in R.C.No.MA1 2011 A 0033 on 29.08.2011 and

after completing the investigation, filed charge sheet in

C.C.No.3 of 2013 before the Special Court for the CBI

Cases, Chennai, for the offences under Section 120-

B IPC and Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against Andasu

Ravinder (A1), Padmanabhan Kishore (A2), Uttam

Chand Bohra (A3), Ramakrishnan (A4), T.Banusekar

(A5) and P.Chandrasekaran (A6). Since the case

registered by the CBI disclosed the commission of a

'schedule offence' under the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002 (for brevity “the PML Act”), the

Enforcement Directorate registered a case in

E.C.I.R.No.13 of 2016 and after completing the

investigation, filed a complaint in C.C.No.60 of 2018

against Everonn Education Limited and three others

including Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) for the offences

under Section 3 r/w 4 of the PML Act, for quashing

which, Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) is before this Court.”

3

5. As is evident from the quoted portion, the respondent had

allegedly handed over a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs

only) to a public servant, which transaction and the surrounding

circumstances were projected in FIR dated 29.8.2011, leading to

registration of crime under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860

(“IPC”, for short) and Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”, for short).

Later, a case was registered by the Enforcement Directorate

against the accused including the respondent under Sections 3

and 4 of the PML Act.

6. The basic submission advanced on behalf of the respondent

was that the amount in question, as long as it was in the hands of

respondent, could not be said to be tainted money; that it assumed

such character only after it was received by the public servant; and

as such the respondent could not be said to be connected with

proceeds of crime and could not be proceeded against under the

provisions of the PML Act. The submission was accepted by the

High Court with the following observations: -

“7. For attracting the penal provisions of the PML Act,

the accused should have projected the proceeds of a

crime as untainted money. In this case, the sum of

Rs.50,00,000/- as long as it was in the hands of

4

Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) could not have been stated

as a tainted money because it is not the case of the CBI

in C.C.No.3 of 2013 that Padmanabhan Kishore (A2)

had mobilised Rs.50,00,000/- via a criminal activity.

The sum of Rs.50,00,000/- became the proceeds of a

crime only when Andasu Ravinder (A1) accepted it as a

bribe. Even before Andasu Ravinder (A1) could project

the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as untainted money, the CBI

intervened and seized the money in the car on

29.08.2011.

8. Therefore, the prosecution of Padmanabhan Kishore

(A2) under the PML Act, in our considered opinion, is

misconceived.

7. The High Court thus allowed the writ petition and quashed

the proceedings in PML Act against the respondent, which decision

is presently under challenge before us.

8. We have heard Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor

General of India in support of appeal and Mr. S. Nagamuthu,

learned senior counsel for the respondent.

9. The definition of proceeds of crime, as appearing in Section

2(1)(u) of the PML Act is as under: -

“2. Definitions. — (1) In this Act, unless the context

otherwise requires,—

xxx xxx xxx

(u) “proceeds of crime” means any property derived or

obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result

of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the

value of any such property or where such property is

taken or held outside the country, then the property

equivalent in value held within the country or abroad;

Explanation.— For the removal of doubts, it is hereby

clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not

5

only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but

also any property which may directly or indirectly be

derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity

relatable to the scheduled offence;”

10. Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act which are the principal

sections for the present purposes, are as under: -

“3. Offence of money-laundering.— Whosoever

directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly

assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in

any process or activity connected proceeds of crime

including its concealment, possession, acquisition or

use and projecting or claiming] it as untainted property

shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.

Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby

clarified that,—

(i) a person shall be guilty of offence of moneylaundering if such person is found to have directly or

indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or

knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or

more of the following processes or activities connected

with proceeds of crime, namely: —

(a) concealment; or

(b) possession; or

(c) acquisition; or

(d) use; or

(e) projecting as untainted property; or

(f) claiming as untainted property,

in any manner whatsoever;

(ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of

crime is a continuing activity and continues till such

time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the

proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or

acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property

or claiming it as untainted property in any manner

whatsoever.

4. Punishment for money-laundering.— Whoever

commits the offence of money-laundering shall be

punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term

6

which shall not be less than three years but which may

extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:

Provided that where the proceeds of crime involved in

money-laundering relates to any offence specified under

paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, the provisions of

this section shall have effect as if for the words “which

may extend to seven years”, the words “which may

extend to ten years” had been substituted.”

11. Paragraph 8 of the Part-A of the Schedule to the PML Act

deals with offences under the PC Act and said paragraph is to the

following effect: -

“PARAGRAPH 8

OFFENCES UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION

ACT, 1988

(49 of 1988)

Section Description of offence

7. Offence relating to public servant being

bribed.

7A. Taking undue advantage to influence public

servant by corrupt or illegal means or by

exercise of personal influence.

8. Offence relating to bribing a public servant.

9. Offence relating to bribing a public servant by

a commercial organisation

10. Person in charge of commercial organisation

to be guilty of offence.

11. Public servant obtaining undue advantage,

without consideration from person concerned

in proceeding or business transacted by such

public servant.

12. Punishment for abetment of offences.

13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.

14. Punishment for habitual offender.”

7

12. The respondent stands charged for having committed offence

of conspiracy to commit offences punishable under Sections 7, 12,

13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The controversy in

the instant matter is not with regard to his involvement in the

offence punishable under the PC Act, but raises a question

whether the respondent can be proceeded against under the

provisions of the PML Act.

13. The definition of “proceeds of crime” in PML Act, inter alia,

means any property derived or obtained by any person as a result

of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The offences

punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13 are scheduled offences,

as is evident from paragraph 8 of Part-A of the Schedule to the PML

Act. Any property thus derived as a result of criminal activity

relating to offence mentioned in said paragraph 8 of Part-A of the

Schedule would certainly be “proceeds of crime”.

14. The further question to be answered is: whether the role

played by respondent could come within the purview of Section 3

of the PML Act?

15. Said Section 3 states, inter alia, that whoever knowingly

assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any

8

process or activity connected with proceeds of crime including its

concealment, possession, acquisition or use shall be guilty of

offence of money-laundering (emphasis added by us).

16. It is true that so long as the amount is in the hands of a bribe

giver, and till it does not get impressed with the requisite intent

and is actually handed over as a bribe, it would definitely be

untainted money. If the money is handed over without such

intent, it would be a mere entrustment. If it is thereafter

appropriated by the public servant, the offence would be of

misappropriation or species thereof but certainly not of bribe. The

crucial part therefore is the requisite intent to hand over the

amount as bribe and normally such intent must necessarily be

antecedent or prior to the moment the amount is handed over.

Thus, the requisite intent would always be at the core before the

amount is handed over. Such intent having been entertained well

before the amount is actually handed over, the person concerned

would certainly be involved in the process or activity connected

with “proceeds of crime” including inter alia, the aspects of

possession or acquisition thereof. By handing over money with the

intent of giving bribe, such person will be assisting or will

9

knowingly be a party to an activity connected with the proceeds of

crime. Without such active participation on part of the person

concerned, the money would not assume the character of being

proceeds of crime. The relevant expressions from Section 3 of the

PML Act are thus wide enough to cover the role played by such

person.

17. On a bare perusal of the complaint made by the Enforcement

Directorate, it is quite clear that the respondent was prima facie

involved in the activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

18. 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.

19. The observations made by us regarding involvement of the

respondent are prima facie in nature and for considering whether

the allegations made by the prosecution if accepted to be true at

this stage, would make out an offence or not. Needless to say that,

on facts, the matter shall be considered purely on merits at the

appropriate stage(s).

20. We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the judgment

and order passed by the High Court. Consequently, the

10

respondent shall continue to be arrayed and proceeded against in

accordance with law in E.C.I.R. No. 13 of 2016 registered by the

Enforcement Directorate.

21. The appeal is thus allowed.

……………………………..CJI.

[Uday Umesh Lalit]

………………………………..J.

[Bela M. Trivedi]

New Delhi;

October 31, 2022.