The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Krishna Murari granted permission for a de novo investigation. The Court's decision entailed allowing a fresh investigation to be conducted from the beginning, essentially nullifying the previous investigation.
Brief Facts of the Case:
A set of Criminal Appeals were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the impugned orders of the Madras High Court.
Brief Background of the Case:
In November 2014, the Metropolitan Transport Corporation of Tamil Nadu issued advertisements calling for applications for various posts. One complaint was lodged by Devasagayam, who alleged that he paid a bribe for his son's job application but did not receive the job. Another complaint was made by Gopi, who claimed that he was approached by individuals connected to the Minister demanding a bribe. These complaints led to the involvement of the police and the High Court.
Procedural History:
The High Court ordered the police to investigate the allegations further and directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police to take over the investigation. However, the police filed a final report that only implicated a few individuals and did not include charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Similar complaints were made by other individuals, but the chargesheets also did not include offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “PCA”).
One of the witnesses in the case, filed a petition in the High Court seeking further investigation, alleging that the police did not follow the court's directions. The High Court ordered the Assistant Commissioner of Police to conduct further investigation. Meanwhile, the Minister filed a petition seeking his discharge in one of the cases, but it was dismissed by the Special Court.
Later, a final report including charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act was filed against several individuals, including the Minister. Candidates who were not selected in the recruitment process also filed writ petitions challenging the selection.
Shortly before the High Court's decision, the Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter referred to as “ED”) registered a report and summoned the Minister. Devasagayam, who had filed the initial complaint, filed a petition seeking a fresh investigation in one of the cases, leading to the registration of a separate case. The High Court's decision to club the cases together allowed Devasagayam to disrupt the proceedings potentially.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court considered a crucial question regarding whether the ED had the authority to begin an investigation and issue summons without identifying the proceeds of crime or property representing those proceeds. The Court declared that the mere registration of a First Information Report (FIR) for a predicate offence, along with the generation of proceeds of crime, was enough to initiate charges of money laundering.
Regarding the argument that the ED should first identify specific properties representing the proceeds of crime before registering an Information Report, the Court maintained that such a requirement would have placed the cart before the horse. It emphasised that any process or activity related to the proceeds of crime, including their acquisition and use, was sufficient to constitute the offence of money laundering.
The judgment also dealt with the issue of accessing records from the Special Court handling the predicate offences. The court upheld the High Court's order allowing the ED to inspect the records under specific provisions, emphasizing that it did not violate the rules governing the granting of certified copies.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court directed the concerned authorities for a fresh/ de novo investigation. The impugned order of the High Court was quashed.
Case Title: Y. Balaji Vs. Karthik Desari & Anr. Etc.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 001671-001673 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 485 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR Mr. B. Karunakaran, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayan, Sr. Adv. 2 Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Ms. Gauri Pasricha, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv. Mr. Shiva K., Adv. Mr. Devamshu Behl, Adv. Mr. Rohan Dewan, Adv. Lakshmi Rao, Adv. Ms. Jhanvi Dubey, Adv. Mr. D.Raghu, Adv. Mr. K. Sathiresan, Adv. Mr. Scv Vimal Pani, Adv. Ms. Garima Jain , AOR Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Ms. Misha Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Nakul Mohta, Adv. Ms. Riya Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Devansh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Bharat Monga, Adv. Ms. Rohini, Adv. Mr. Zafar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. N Subramaniyan, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Neha Rathi, Adv. Ms. Aakriti, Adv.
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Senthil, Adv. Mr. C. Pandian, Adv. Mr. M. Thangathurai, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kishor Tyagi, Adv. Mr. T.S. Nanda Kumar, Adv. Mr. Yusuf, AOR Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv. N. Bharani Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Adv. Ms. Rupali Samuel, Adv. Ms. Sumedha Roy Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar V., Adv. Mr. G. Jai Singh, Adv. M/s. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR Mr. Sajal Jain, Adv. Ms. Anasuya Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Rudraditya Khare, Adv. 301 Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. R-1 Ms. Misha Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Nakul Mohta, Adv. Ms. Riya Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Bharat Monga, Adv. Ms. Alina Merin Mathew, Adv. Mr. Samyak Jain, Adv. Mohd. Owais, Adv. Mr. Aakash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR 301.2 Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, AOR Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Misha Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Solicitor General Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, A.A.G. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
