Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 224 (KAR)

C. Devaraju v. Directorate of Enforcement

2023-02-06

R.NATARAJ

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has challenged the Order dtd. 15/4/2021 passed by the XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases in Spl.CC. No.304/2018 by which an application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') was rejected. 2. The petitioner was a First Division Assistant at HOPCOMS, Lalbagh, Bengaluru. A raid was conducted by the Karnataka Lokayukta, Ramanagara, against the petitioner and a case in Crime No.9/2009 was registered against the petitioner under Ss. 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act'). During the search, the authorities of Lokayukta had recovered documents relating to the properties registered in the name of the petitioner following which a chargesheet was filed against him under Sec. 13(1)(e) and Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act. It was found that the petitioner possessed disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs.1, 19, 44, 944.00, which was 200.58 % more than his known source of income. The check period was 1/11/1981 to 2/12/2009. In view of the fact that the offence under the PC Act was a scheduled offence under the PML Act, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Sec. 4 of the PML Act as defined under Sec. 3 of the said Act. After recording of evidence, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 245(2) of the Cr.P.C. for discharge on various grounds one of which was that he was not a Government employee and that the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 was not applicable to the HOPCOMS where he was working. It was also contended that the petitioner was discharged in Special Case No.50/2015 filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta and therefore the prosecution of the petitioner under the provisions of the PML Act was not maintainable. It was further claimed that the check period was 1/11/1981 to 2/12/2009 at which point in time an offence under Sec. 13 of the P.C. Act was not a scheduled offence under the PML Act as it was inserted only on 15/2/2013. 3. The Trial Court after considering the contentions of the parties, relied upon a Judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Petition No.5698/2019 and connected cases and rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 4. 3. The Trial Court after considering the contentions of the parties, relied upon a Judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Petition No.5698/2019 and connected cases and rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question whether the proceedings under the PML Act can continue even after an accused was acquitted in the predicate offence came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others [2022 SCC OnLine SC 929] where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that acquittal of the accused in the predicate offence should result in termination of the proceedings under the PML Act. 6. This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner / accused by the respondent under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in Spl.C.C. No.304/2018 are closed.