Court rejects applications for discharge in ED Case
20/06/2019
JAMMU, June 19: CBI Judge Srinagar Mohan Singh Parihar rejected the applications of P. Z. Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, Irshad Ahmad Hajjam and Firdous Iqbal Wani seeking their discharge of the offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), hereinafter referred as PML Act. The complainant namely, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement Government of India, Durrani House Rajbagh, Srinagar has filed a criminal complaint in this Court for the prosecution of the above named accused for alleged to have committing offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PML Act.
CBI Judge Srinagar Mohan Singh Parihar after hearing both the sides observed that 36- Section 24 of the PML Act deals with burden of proof and as per Clause (a), in the case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under Section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering. In the case Union of India Versus Hassan Ali Khan (2011) 10SCC 235, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that what will be the burden of proof when attempt is made to project the proceeds of crime as untainted money. It has been held in the said case that the allegations relating to offence of money-laundering may not ultimately be established, but having been made, the burden of proof that the money was not the proceeds of crime and was not tainted shifted on the accused under section 24 of the PML Act. The Parliament as per the commitment of the county to the United Nations General Assembly, has enacted PML Act 2002 in order to prevent money-laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from or involved in money laundering and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Court further observed that in the present case, the investigation conducted by Directorate of Enforcement has revealed that A-1, was involved in channelizing the ill gotten money and delivering the same to militant cadres in Kashmir Valley. The services of A-1 were utilized by Hizbul Mujahideen outfit, as is clear from the fact that letter pads of Hizbul Mujahideen were also recovered by the police alongwith cash amount at the instance of A-2 namely Irshad Ahmad Hajam. A-1 utilized the service of A-2 also for distributing the ill gotten money among the militant sympathizers/cadres. A-2 was fully aware of the fact that the money they distributed reached the families of militancy victims. Accused 1 and 2 distributed the money for their personal gains as they used to get commission against such distribution. The money accused 1 and 2 distributed was arranged by the persons like A-3. During the investigation it has been also revealed that Firdous Ahmad Wani A-3 had handed over huge amount/money to the A-1 and A-2, which was seized by local police. It has been claimed that the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was seized from the house of A-3 also. A-3 claimed that the said amount was the sale proceeds of the share of property of his brother who has now settled in Pakistan and had been handed over to the A-1 and A-2 after selling the share of his brother in the property, for delivering to his brother, but A-3 failed to produce any evidence to justify the sale of any land against which the amount available with him was received. These facts disclose that the seized money of Rs. 17,73,914/- was acquired by three accused through illegal means and was proceeds of crime meant for strengthening militant cadres of Hizbul Mujahideen. From the material on the record, it appears that the money seized by police is the proceeds of crime which the accused had attempted to distribute among the militant cadres. From the facts narrated in the complaint, it is revealed that the seized money of Rs. 17,73,914/- was proceeds of crime, as defined in Section 2(u) of the Act collected out of the offences scheduled to the PML Act and all the three accused have claimed that the money seized is not the proceeds of crime and is untainted money. So in a money laundering case the burden is upon the accused in terms of Section 24 of the Act, to prove that the money recovered and seized from them was neither proceeds of crime nor untainted money. The complainant is duly authorized to file the complaint in this Court for the prosecution of accused and the cognizance taken by this Court for offence under Section 4 of the PML Act is in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Court after hearing both the sides observed that in my opinion there is prima-facie sufficient material against the accused to presume that the accused have committed offence of Money-Laundering under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of PML Act and the accused are liable to be charged under said Section. The application filed by accused for discharge is without any merit, which is accordingly dismissed and be attached with the main file.
Share This Story |
|
Comment On This Story |
|
|