# Abdul Razak Peediyakkal v. U.O.I

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 8
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7719 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abdul-razak-peediyakkal-v-u-o-i-49771
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Bail - The Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections
2(u) - "proceeds of crime" , Section 3, 4,
44, 45 & 70 , Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 120B & 121A ,143, 147, 153B
r/w 149, 153A/295A/124A , Arms Act,
1959 - Section 3,5 (1) (a) r/w 25 (1) (a),
The Explosives Substances Act, 1908 -
Section 3,4 & 5 , The Unlawful Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1967
-
Section
13,16,18,20, The Information Technology
Act, 2002 - Section 65/72/76 .

(B) The Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 - Section 45 - Offences to be
cognizable
and
non-bailable
-
Twin
conditions - (i) the Public Prosecutor has
been given an opportunity to oppose the
application for such release; and (ii)
where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that
there are reasonable grounds for believing
that he is not guilty of such offence and
that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. (Para - 23)

Cases related to offence of money laundering -
Applicant (PFI member) a big businessman
based in Abu Dhabi - role of applicant different
from co-accused - criminal conspiracy - accused
of engaging in illegal activities - remitting funds
to PFI through hawala or other underground
channels - not cooperated in investigation -
Foreign funds raised/collected abroad by PFI,
CFI and their related organizations - more than
Rs.100 Crore deposited in PFI and its related
entities over the years.(Para - 13,14,16)

HELD:- Bail application of the present applicant
does not qualify the twin conditions of Section
45 of the PMLA, as the applicant is based in Abu
Dhabi and the proceeds of crime are in crores.
Factum of guilt can be proved or disproved
before trial court. Direction to conclude trial
within six months and take any appropriate
coercive steps in accordance with law.(Para -
23)

Bail application rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
clause (a) of section 16 shall apply to
transactions by any surviving partner or by
the representatives of a deceased partner,
undertaken after the firm is dissolved on
account of the death of a partner and
before its affairs have been completely
wound up:

Provided that where any partner
or his representative has bought the
goodwill of the firm, nothing in the section
shall affect his right to use the firm-name."

11. Relevant part of Section 16 of the
Act is also extracted below:

"16. Personal profits earned by
partners.-Subject to the contract between
the partners, -

(a) if a partner derives any profits
for himself from any transaction of the firm,
or from the use of the property or business
connection of the firm or the firm-name, he
shall account for that profit and pay it to
the firm;"

12. Under Section 40 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an
arbitration agreement does not stand
discharged on account of death of any party
thereto, unless the right of action is
extinguished by operation of any law.
Section 45 of the Act clearly stipulates that
notwithstanding the dissolution of a firm,
the partners continue to be liable as such to
third parties for any act done by any of
them which would have been an act of the
firm if done before the dissolution, until
public notice is given of the dissolution.
The specific case of the applicant is that the
surviving partners without informing the
applicant about death of one of its partners,
continued to transact business with it.
Consequently, I find no merit in the
contention that on account of death of one
of the partners and resultant dissolution of
the firm, the dispute between the parties
could not be referred for adjudication to the
arbitrator.

13. As by operation of law, the
Director (Marketing) or his nominee cannot
act as an arbitrator, therefore, the applicant
has rightly approached this Court to
constitute an Arbitral Tribunal.

14. The application is allowed.

15. This Court proposes the name of
Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate for being
appointed as Arbitrator. His address is
20/12 A, Panna Lal Road, Allahabad
(Mobile No. 9415235110). He will be paid
fees in accordance with the Fourth
Schedule.

16. Let consent of Sri Rahul Sahai,
Advocate be obtained by the office in terms
of Section 11(8), read with Section 12(1) of
the Act by sending a letter to him.

17. In case, the proposed arbitrator
does not give his consent or the disclosures
in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 12,
the application will be listed before the
Court for the limited purpose of proposing
name of alternate arbitrator.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 8
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7719 of 2022

Abdul Razak Peediyakkal ...Applicant
Versus
U.O.I. ...Opposite Party
2 All. Abdul Razak Peediyakkal Vs. U.O.I.
9
Counsel for the Applicant:
Pranav Agarwal

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Kuldeep Srivastava, Shiv P. Shukla

(A) Criminal Law - Bail - The Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections
2(u) - "proceeds of crime" , Section 3, 4,
44, 45 & 70 , Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 120B & 121A ,143, 147, 153B
r/w 149, 153A/295A/124A , Arms Act,
1959 - Section 3,5 (1) (a) r/w 25 (1) (a),
The Explosives Substances Act, 1908 -
Section 3,4 & 5 , The Unlawful Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1967
-
Section
13,16,18,20, The Information Technology
Act, 2002 - Section 65/72/76 .

(B) The Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 - Section 45 - Offences to be
cognizable
and
non-bailable
-
Twin
conditions - (i) the Public Prosecutor has
been given an opportunity to oppose the
application for such release; and (ii)
where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that
there are reasonable grounds for believing
that he is not guilty of such offence and
that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. (Para - 23)

Cases related to offence of money laundering -
Applicant (PFI member) a big businessman
based in Abu Dhabi - role of applicant different
from co-accused - criminal conspiracy - accused
of engaging in illegal activities - remitting funds
to PFI through hawala or other underground
channels - not cooperated in investigation -
Foreign funds raised/collected abroad by PFI,
CFI and their related organizations - more than
Rs.100 Crore deposited in PFI and its related
entities over the years.(Para - 13,14,16)

HELD:- Bail application of the present applicant
does not qualify the twin conditions of Section
45 of the PMLA, as the applicant is based in Abu
Dhabi and the proceeds of crime are in crores.
Factum of guilt can be proved or disproved
before trial court. Direction to conclude trial
within six months and take any appropriate
coercive steps in accordance with law.(Para -
23)

Bail application rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & ors. Vs U.O.I. &
ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929

2. Babulal Verma & anr. Vs Enforcement
Directorate & anr., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 392

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Rizwan, learned counsel
for
the
applicant
and
Sri
Kuldeep
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
Enforcement Directorate.

2. As per learned counsel for the
applicant, the present applicant is in jail
since
10.03.2022
in
ECIR
No.ECIR/02/HIU/2018, under Sections 3, 4
& 70 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002, Police Station -
Directorate of Enforcement, APJ Abdul
Kalam Road, New Delhi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that the present applicant has
been falsely implicated in the case by the
Enforcement
Directorate
(hereinafter
referred to as "E.D.") inasmuch as no case
is made out against the accused-applicant
under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred
to as "the PMLA"), which is punishable
under Section 4 of the PMLA.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that the offence of money
laundering as defined under Section 3 of
the
PMLA
specifically
posits
that
whosoever 'directly or indirectly attempts
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to
indulge
or
knowingly
assists
or
knowingly is a party or is actually involved
in any process or activity connected with
the 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.

5. Learned counsel has further
submitted that the definition of 'proceeds of
crime' is provided under Section 2 (u) of
the Act which 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 nature
of any such property".

6. Therefore, the commission of the
scheduled/predicate offence by way of
which ''any property derived or obtained,
directly or indirectly is a mandatory
requirement for a 'property' to become
'proceeds of crime'. In support of his
argument, learned counsel for the applicant
has
referred
para-251 of
the Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary and Others Vs.
Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC
OnLine
SC
929,
which
is
being
reproduced herein below:-

"251. The "proceeds of crime"
being
the
core
of
the
ingredients
constituting
the
offence
of
moneylaundering, that expression needs to be
construed strictly. In that, all properties
recovered or attached by the investigating
agency in connection with the criminal
activity relating to a scheduled offence
under the general law cannot be regarded
as proceeds of crime. There may be cases
where the property involved in the
commission of scheduled offence attached
by the investigating agency dealing with
that offence, cannot be wholly or partly
regarded as proceeds of crime within the
meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act
-- so long as the whole or some portion of
the property has been derived or obtained
by any person "as a result of" criminal
activity relating to the stated scheduled
offence. To be proceeds of crime, therefore,
the property must be derived or obtained,
directly or indirectly, "as a result of"
criminal activity relating to a scheduled
offence. To put it differently, the vehicle
used in commission of scheduled offence
may be attached as property in the
concerned case (crime), it may still not be
proceeds of crime within the meaning of
Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act. Similarly,
possession
of
unaccounted
property
acquired by legal means may be actionable
for tax violation and yet, will not be
regarded as proceeds of crime unless the
concerned tax legislation prescribes such
violation as an offence and such offence is
included in the Schedule of the 2002 Act.
For being regarded as proceeds of crime,
the property associated with the scheduled
offence must have been derived or obtained
by a person "as a result of" criminal
activity relating to the concerned scheduled
offence. This distinction must be borne in
mind while reckoning any property referred
to in the scheduled offence as proceeds of
crime for the purpose of the 2002 Act.
Dealing with proceeds of crime by way of
any process or activity constitutes offence
of money-laundering under Section 3 of the
Act."

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that there are three predicate
offences relating to the issue in question
wherein the present applicant was not
named. FIR No.276/2013 [1st Predicate
Offence'] dated 23.04.2013 against 22
persons was registered under Sections 143,
147, 153B r/w 149 of the Indian Penal
2 All. Abdul Razak Peediyakkal Vs. U.O.I.
11
Code, 1860; Section 5 (1) (a) r/w 25 (1) (a)
of the Arms Act, 1959; Section 4 & 5 of the
Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and
Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967. The said case
emanating from the FIR stands closed up to
the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its orders
dated 13.04.2017 and 04.07.2017 in SLP
(Criminal) Nos. 4511-4513 of 2017 and
2875 of 2017 respectively. Further, FIR No.
199/2020 dated 07.10.2020 [2nd Predicate
Offence'],
has
been
registered
U/s
153A/295A/124A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860; 17 and 18 of UAPA and
65/72/76 of the Information Technology
Act,
2002.
FIR
No.04/2021
dated
16.02.2021 [3rd Predicate Offence'] has
been registered U/s 120B and 121A of the
IPC; Sections 13, 16, 18 and 20 of UAPA;
Section 3, 4, and 5 of the Explosives
Substances Act and Section 3 and 25 of the
Arms Act against Anshad Badharudeen and
Firoz Khan.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
has reiterated that the present applicant is
not an accused in any of the aforesaid three
predicate offences. However, he has been
arrested on 10.03.2022 pursuant to the
ECIR in question.

9. Under the provisions of Sections 44
and 45 of PMLA, the E.D. has filed
complaint and supplementary complaint
under Sections 3, 4 & 70 of the PMLA
dated
06.02.2021
and
06.05.2022
respectively. The aforesaid complaint has
been filed against five accused persons,
namely, K.A. Rauf Sherif, Atikur Rehman,
Masud Ahmed, Sidique Kappan and Mohd.
Alam.
However,
pursuant
to
the
supplementary complaint four individuals/
entities have been made accused by the
E.D. i.e Abdul Razak Peediyakkal (present
accused-applicant), Ashraf Khadir alias
Ashraf MK, Munnar Villa Vista Pvt. Ltd.,
Tamar India Spices Pvt. Ltd. Learned
counsel for the applicant has fairly
indicated the allegations against the present
applicant in para-12 of the bail application,
which reads as under:-

"12. The following principal
allegations and the case set up against the
Applicant/Accused in the Supplementary
Complaint is as under:

I. The purported 1st and 2nd
Predicate Offence (s) are the very basis on
which the Applicant/Accused is being
investigated in the present Complaint and
Supplementary Complaint i.e. the same set
of
offences
which
the
Ernakulum
Judgement finds no substance in order to
enlarge the main conspirator on bail;

II. Admittedly, the Applicant/
Accused is a long-time member of an
organization known as Popular Front of
India [PFI] and purportedly 12 cases have
been registered against the PFI, in which
admittedly the Accused/Applicant is not an
accused;

III. Apparently, in terms of the
investigation a residential plot viz. Munnar
Villa Vista Project [Project], Munnar,
Kerala is being developed with a motive to
launder money and the Applicant/Accused
is the largest shareholder of the Project;

IV. In terms of Supplementary
Complaint, the Project has revealed certain
discrepancies/irregularities in its funding
mentioned therein. There is no allegation
as regards the Applicant/Accused as
regards
the
certain
discrepancies/
irregularities in the funding of the Project.
It is submitted that there per force cannot
be
any
allegation
against
the
Applicant/Accused inasmuch he is only a
shareholder in the Project and has neither
managerial nor directorial role thereto.
True Copy of the Company Master Date of
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Company 'Munnar Villa Vista Private
Limited' as available on www.mca.nic.in is
annexed
herewith
and
marked
as
ANNEXURE A-6. True Copies of the
minutes of the Board meeting dated
30.07.2018 and 01.07.2020 of Company
'Munnar Villa Vista Private Limited' is
annexed
herewith
and
marked
as
ANNEXURE A-7 [COLLY];

V. It is submitted that a bare
reading of the table at Para 8 of the
Supplementary Complaint establishes the
following:

a)
Monies
amounting
to
Rs.33,72,043/- have been transferred from
11.07.2012 to 10.06.2020 to Rehab India
Foundation, an NGO;

b)
These
are
legitimate
transactions
through
RTGS/NEFT,
emanating
from
the
coffers
of
the
Applicant/Accused;

c) There is no averment that the
said monies have been derived from the
commission of any predicate/scheduled
offence, let alone 1st Predicate Offence;

d) In any case the commission of
the 2nd and 3rd so called Predicate
Offence took place after the transactions of
the Applicant/Accused dated 11.07.2012 to
10.06.2020, therefore, the 2nd and 3
''predicate offences cannot per force lead to
'proceeds of crime'.

VI. Furthermore, a reading of
Paras 8.3 to 8.7 nowhere delineates, how
the monies transferred by the Applicant/
Accused emanate out of any Predicate
Offence;

VII.
The
Applicant/Accused
further submits that he has no business
interests
in
Qatar,
Malaysia
and
Switzerland. The Applicant/Accused only
has business interests in Abu Dhabi. True
Copy of the business interests of the
Applicant/Accused are annexed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE A-8."

10. Learned counsel has further
submitted that the main conspirator in
terms of para-10 of the complaint, namely,
K.A. Rauf Sherif was enlarged on bail by
the Special Court for PMLA Cases under
the PMLA, at Ernakulam, Kerala on
12.02.2021. He has also submitted that the
E.D. vide e-mail dated 20.12.2021 asked
the accused-applicant to appear before it at
New Delhi on 27.12.2021 with the requisite
documents.
In
response
thereto,
the
accused-applicant
vide
e-mail
dated
20.12.2021 requested from the E.D. to
summon him in his Cochin office.
Thereafter, the accused-applicant received
further summons dated 14.02.2022 to
appear in New Delhi on 19.02.2022 and the
accused-applicant
promptly
appeared
before the authorities at New Delhi.
However, the E.D. has arrested the present
applicant on 10.03.2022 from Calicut
Airport without having any cogent reasons.
Thereafter, he was sent to the judicial
custody on 16.03.2022.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant
has referred various judgments of the Apex
Court to submit that it is a trite law that
there exist three main factors while
granting bail to any accused person i.e. (a)
the accused shall not tamper with the
evidence; (b) the accused shall not
influence the witness(s) and (c) the accused
shall not be at flight risk, therefore, gravity
of offence cannot be the sole ground to
deny bail. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that the present applicant
undertakes that if he is released on bail, he
shall abide by all terms and conditions of
the bail order and shall not misuse the
liberty of bail.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant
has drawn attention of this Court towards
the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by this
2 All. Abdul Razak Peediyakkal Vs. U.O.I.
13
Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.13642 of 2022 whereby co-accused
Sidhique Kappan has been granted bail.
Therefore, learned counsel has submitted
that since co-accused Sidhique Kappan has
been enlarged on bail, therefore, the present
applicant may also be enlarged on bail on
the basis of principles of parity.

13.

Per
contra,
Sri
Kuldeep
Srivastava, learned counsel for the E.D. has
submitted that during PMLA investigation,
the fact emerged that the funds amounting
to Rs.1.36 Crore, raised/collected abroad
by the office bearers/ members/ activists of
PFI, CFI and their related organizations,
were routed to the Bank Accounts of K.A.
Rauf Sherif, the National General Secretary
of CFI. Further, the investigation against
PFI has so far revealed that more than
Rs.100 Crore have been deposited in the
accounts of PFI and its related entities over
the years. It has come into the notice of the
Investigating Agency that foreign funds
have been remitted to India through
hawala/ underground channels and through
remittance
sent
to
the
accounts
of
members/
activists/office
bearers
of
PFI/CFI and other related organizations.

14. Initially, active participation of
five accused persons have been noticed
thorough reliable evidences and materials
whose names have been indicated in the
first
complaint
but
after
further
investigation, name of the present applicant
came into the notice, therefore, in the
supplementary complaint, the applicant has
been made accused. Pursuant to the
exercise being undertaken through further
investigation, role of the present applicant,
who is a PFI member based in Kerala and
Abu Dhabi, for doing the aforesaid illegal
activities has been emerged. Thereafter, he
has been issued summons to cooperate in
the
investigation.
Since
the
present
applicant is based at Abu Dhabi and is
indulged in the aforesaid illegal activities
i.e. remitting funds to PFI through hawala
or other underground channels, therefore,
he has not properly cooperated in the
investigation, rather has stated time and
again that the explanation so sought by the
E.D. would be replied by his Chartered
Accountant. As per admission of the
present applicant before the E.D., he has
stated that he became the member of PFI in
2014-15 and is still a member. He was
made Divisional President in June, 2021,
later he resigned from such post in
December, 2021. He used to contribute to
PFI in the form of monthly subscription.
On being asked from him whether he had
given any money in any other organization,
he stated that he had donated money to
Rehab
India
Foundation
(hereinafter
referred to as "RIF") as Zakath and has not
remembered the exact amount but the same
could be obtained from his Bank statement
accounts.

15. As per Sri Srivatastava, learned
counsel for the E.D., the applicant has
admitted that though he was based in Abu
Dhabi, he was still made the Director of
Thejus in 2010. It has been noticed by the
Investigating Agency that the accusedapplicant has transferred a huge sum of
Rs.33,72,043.00 over the period 11.07.2012
to 22.07.2020 to RIF. He explained that he
had donated the aforesaid money to RIF as
Jakath. Sri Srivastava has drawn attention
of this Court towards para-7 of the
complaint wherein the brief summary of
result of investigation under PMLA relating
to the present applicant has been given,
which goes to show that the present
applicant has transferred a substantial
amount to Rehab India Foundation through
three Bank accounts; one from HDFC Bank
14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and two from South Indian Bank vide two
separate Bank accounts. Sri Srivastava has
also drawn attention of this Court towards
the remaining paragraph of para-7 of the
complaint, more particularly, para 7.10,
which explains "raising of funds abroad
and their transfer to India through illegal
channels". Para 7.10 (i) (ii) & (iii) indicates
that the fund amounting to Rs.10 Crore in
two installments were transferred by the
present applicant to another PFI member
Mohamed Ashraf Pilasheri of Calicut and
that the explanation of proposal to buy a
plot was a mere afterthought and pretext
used by the applicant to conceal the true
nature of movement of funds. Relevant
extracts of the documents have been shown
in the complaint.

16. Therefore, Sri Srivastava has
stated that role of the present applicant is so
serious and he being a big businessman
based in Abu Dhabi, if released on bail,
may abscond or may influence the trial
proceedings
as
the
trial
is
pending
consideration before the learned trial court
where the charges have been framed. He
has also submitted that the role of the
present applicant is altogether different
from that of co-accused Sidhique Kappan,
who has been granted bail by this Court on
23.12.2022 inasmuch as the role assigned
to Sidhique Kappan is in respect of
hatching criminal conspiracy with K.A.
Rauf Sherif. Except the allegation that
Rs.5,000/- were transferred in the Bank
account of co-accused Atikur Rahman,
there is no other transaction either in the
Bank account of Sidhique Kappan or in the
Bank account of co-accused.

17.

Sri
Srivastava
has
also
submitted that if the bail of the present
applicant is considered, satisfaction in
respect of Section 45 of PMLA may be
given inasmuch as unless the twin
conditions mentioned under Section 45 of
the PMLA are satisfied, the bail may not
be granted. Therefore, Sri Srivastava has
submitted that the present applicant may
not take the aid of the dictum of the Apex
Court in re; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary
(supra) inasmuch as the law has been
settled that even if any person is not
named in the predicate offence(s), even
then if his complicity comes into notice
during
investigation
relating
to
the
offence of E.D., he may very well be
implicated.

18. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
on record.

19. At the very outset, it would be
appropriate to indicate Sections 2 (u), 3
& 4 of the PMLA, which reads as under:-

"2 (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.

3.
Offence
of
moneylaundering.--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 with the proceeds of
crime and projecting it as untainted
property shall be guilty of offence of
money-laundering.

4.
Punishment
for
moneylaundering.--Whoever
commits
the
offence of money-laundering shall be
punishable with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than
three years but which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to
2 All. Abdul Razak Peediyakkal Vs. U.O.I.
15
fine which may extend to five lakh
rupees:

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."

20. The aforesaid provisions of law
have been aptly interpreted by the High
Court of Bombay in re; Babulal Verma
and
Another
Vs.
Enforcement
Directorate and Another, 2021 SCC
OnLine Bom 392, from paragraphs 29 to
34, which are being reproduced hereunder:-

"29. The language of Sections 3
and 4 of PMLA, makes it absolutely clear
that, the investigation of an offence under
Section 3, which is punishable under
Section 4, is not dependent upon the
ultimate result of the Predicate/Scheduled
Offence. In other words, it is a totally
independent investigation as defined and
contemplated under Section 2(na), of an
offence committed under Section 3 of the
said Act.

30. PMLA is a special statute
enacted with a specific object i.e. to track
and investigate cases of money-laundering.
Therefore,
after
lodgment
of
Predicate/Scheduled Offence, its ultimate
result will not have any bearing on the
lodgment/investigation of a crime under the
PMLA and the offence under the PMLA will
survive and stand alone on its own. A
Predicate/Scheduled Offence is necessary
only for registration of crime/launching
prosecution under PMLA and once a crime
is registered under the PMLA, then the ED
has to take it to its logical end, as
contemplated under Section 44 of the Act.

31. The PMLA itself, does not
provide for any contingency like the case in
hand and argued by the learned counsel for
the Applicants. Section 44(b) only provides
for filing of a complaint or submission of a
closure report by the Investigating Agency
under PMLA and none else.

32. If the contention of the
learned counsel for the Applicants that,
once the foundation is removed, the
structure/work thereon falls is accepted,
then it will have frustrating effect on the
intention of Legislature in enacting the
PMLA. The observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar,
(supra) in paragraph No. 107 and
Sanjaysingh Ramrao Chavan (Supra) in
para No. 17 are in context of the facts of
the said case and pertaining to the offences
under the provisions of IPC and P.C. Act
and therefore, the same cannot be applied
to the case in hand which arises out of a
special statute namely PMLA enacted by
the Legislature with an avowed object.

33. Hypothetically, ''an accused'
in a Predicate/Scheduled Offence is highly
influential either monetarily or by muscle
power and by use of his influence gets the
base offence, compromised or compounded
to avoid further investigation by ED i.e.
money laundering or the trail of proceeds
of
crime
by
him,
either
in
the
Predicate/Scheduled Offence or any of the
activities revealed therefrom. And, if the
aforestated contention of the learned
counsel for the Applicants is accepted, it
will put to an end to the independent
investigation of ED i.e. certainly not the
intention of Legislature in enacting the
PMLA. Therefore, if the contention of the
learned counsel for the Applicants is
accepted, in that event, it would be easiest
mode for the accused in a case under
PMLA to scuttle and/or put an end to the
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigation under the PMLA. Therefore,
the said contention needs to be rejected.

34. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, it is clear that, even if the
Investigating
Agency
investigating
a
Scheduled Offence has filed closure report
in
it
and
the
Court
of
competent
jurisdiction has accepted it, it will not wipe
out or cease to continue the investigation of
Respondent No. 1 (ED) in the offence of
money-laundering being investigated by it.
The investigation of Respondent No. 1 will
continue on its own till it reaches the stage
as contemplated under Section 44 of the
PMLA."

21. It is clear that a person may not be
involved in original criminal activity that
had resulted in generation of proceed of
crime but he can join the main accused
either
as
abettor
or
conspirator
for
committing
the
offence
of
money
laundering by helping him in laundering
the proceed of crime. Therefore, just
because the applicant was not named or not
prosecuted for the predicate offence, his
prosecution for money laundering cannot
be said to be illegal. Para-271 in re; Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary (supra) is being
reproduced herein below:-

"271. As mentioned earlier, the
rudimentary understanding of ''moneylaundering' is that there are three generally
accepted stages to money-laundering, they
are:

(a) Placement : which is to move
the funds from direct association of the
crime.

(b) Layering : which is disguising
the trail to foil pursuit.

(c) Integration : which is making
the money available to the criminal from
what seem to be legitimate sources."

22. Notably, the Apex Court in re;
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) has
held that provision in the form of Section
45
of
PMLA,
as
applicable
post
amendment of 2018, is reasonable and has
direct nexus with the purposes and objects
sought to be achieved by the PMLA to
combat the menace of money laundering
having
transnational
consequences
including impacting the financial systems
and sovereignty and integrity of the
country. While granting bail of an accused
person, twin conditions of Section 45 of the
PMLA will have to be adhered to.

23. For the convenience, Section 45
of
the
PMLA
is
being
reproduced
hereunder:-

"45. Offences to be cognizable
and non-bailable.--(1) [Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person
accused of an offence [under this Act] shall
be released on bail or on his own bond
unless--]

(i) the Public Prosecutor has
been given an opportunity to oppose the
application for such release; and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor
opposes the application, the court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that he is not guilty of such
offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail:

Provided that a person who is
under the age of sixteen years or is a
woman or is sick or infirm [or is accused
either on his own or along with other coaccused of money-laundering a sum of less
than one crore rupees], may be released on
bail, if the special court so directs:

Provided further that the Special
Court shall not take cognizance of any
2 All. Abdul Razak Peediyakkal Vs. U.O.I.
17
offence punishable under section 4 except
upon a complaint in writing made by--

(i) the Director; or

(ii) any officer of the Central
Government
or
State
Government
authorised in writing in this behalf by the
Central Government by a general or a
special order made in this behalf by that
Government.

[(1-A) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other
provision of this Act, no police officer shall
investigate into an offence under this Act
unless specifically authorised, by the
Central Government by a general or
special
order,
and,
subject
to
such
conditions as may be prescribed.]

(2) The limitation on granting of
bail specified in [***] of sub-section (1) is
in addition to the limitations under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) or any other law for the time being in
force on granting of bail."

24. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the issue in question, the
bail application of the present applicant
does not qualify the twin conditions of
Section 45 of the PMLA inasmuch as at
this stage it cannot be observed that the
present applicant has not committed the
offence for which the complaint has been
filed against him. The proceed of crime is
also in crores. The applicant is based at
Abu Dhabi. The factum of guilt can be
proved or disproved before the learned trial
court. Learned counsel for the E.D. has
informed that the trial in the present case is
going on with good pace and the same may
likely be concluded very soon, therefore, I
am not inclined to grant bail to the present
applicant, rather I would like to issue
direction to the learned trial court to
conclude the trial with expedition.

25. So far as claim of parity with coaccused Sidhique Kappan is concerned, the
role assigned to Sidhique Kappan is in
respect of hatching criminal conspiracy
with
K.A.
Rauf Sherif.
Except
the
allegation that Rs.5,000/- were transferred
in the Bank account of co-accused Atikur
Rahman, there is no other transaction either
in the Bank account of Sidhique Kappan or
in the Bank account of co-accused whereas
the role of the present applicant is
altogether different from that of co-accused
Sidhique Kappan as the present applicant is
based at Abu Dhabi and the proceed of
crime is in crores, therefore, the present
applicant cannot claim parity with coaccused Sidhique Kappan.

26. Accordingly, the bail application
is rejected.

27. Learned trial court is directed to
conclude
the
trial
with
expedition,
preferably within a period of six months
by fixing short date and no unnecessary
adjournment shall be given to any of the
parties. If any of the parties do not
cooperate in the trial proceedings, the
learned
trial
court
may
take
any
appropriate coercive steps in accordance
with law.

28. Liberty is given to the applicant to
file another bail application, if the trial is
not
concluded
within
the
aforesaid
stipulated time.

29. It is made clear that I have not
entered into merits of the issue, therefore,
learned trial court shall conduct and
conclude the trial without being influenced
from any observation or finding of this
order as the observations are only confined
to the disposal of this bail application.
----------
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 2 ILRA 18
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Civil Revision No. 4 of 2023

Dr. Sushil Suri ...Revisionist
Versus
Hari Suri & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Pritish Kumar, Shantanu Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Akber Ahmad, Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra

A. Civil Law -Code of Civil Procedure,
1908-Section 115 - Court Fees Act,1870Sections 7(iv-A), 7(v), (v-A), (v-B) (as
inserted by State of U.P.)- Court feesComputation-Market
value-In
cases
where suits are filed in a court having
unlimited
pecuniary
jurisdictionDefendant does not have any vested right
to raise objections regarding valuation of
suit property and court fees paid thereonHowever it is for Court concerned to
consider same in case it finds valuation of
suit
property
and
Court
fees
paid
thereupon
to
be
arbitrary
or
demonstratively undervalued-Court fees
for said suit would have to be calculated
in reference to averments in plaint in
terms of section 7(iv)(c) r/w section 7(v)
and not ad valorem Court fee on market
value-If suit would have been only for
declaratory decree without consequential
relief, Article 17(iii) of Sch. II would have
been applicable.(Para 1 to 25)

The revision is allowed. (E-6)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Pritish Kumar assisted by
Mr. Shantanu Gupta Advocate learned
counsel for petitioner, Mr. S.K. Kalia Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Akber Ahmad
learned counsel for opposite party No.1 and
Mr. Abhinav Bhattacharya learned counsel
for opposite parties 3 and 4.

2. Learned counsel for party admit
that the opposite party no.2 is in relation to
the opposite parties no.3 and 4, who are
already represented and notices may be
dispensed with. In view of aforesaid,
notices to opposite party no.2 stand
dispensed
with
and
case
is
being
adjudicated at admission stage with consent
of learned counsel for parties since no
questions of fact are involved.

3. Civil Revision under Section 115 of
the Code Civil Procedure has been filed
against order dated 3rd December, 2022
passed in regular suit No. 342 of 2015
whereby preliminary issue No.3 regarding
valuation of suit and court fees paid thereon
has been decided against revisionistplaintiff.

4. Learned counsel for revisionist
submits that revisionist had filed suit for
partition of properties indicated in the
plaint which included one residential plot,
one commercial plot and a building. It is
submitted that the suit was valued at
Rs.2,72,12,403/- and court fees thereon was
paid at 20 times the annual rental value in
terms of Section 7(v)(I)(c) of the Court
Fees Act, 1870 with regard to the two plots
and similarly court fees was paid as per
nagar palika rental in terms of section
7(v)(II). It is submitted that aforesaid
method of determining market value of the
properties is one of the modes of
determination thereof which has been an
accepted
principle
in
various
pronouncements as per U.P. Amendment to
Court Fees Act, 1870.