NEW DELHI: In a major relief to Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar, the Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed proceedings initiated against him in a money laundering case. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and K V Viswanathan allowed the appeal filed by Shivakumar.
Shivakumar has approached the Supreme Court challenging Karnataka High Court order in 2019. the Karnataka High Court has rejected Shivakumar’s plea seeking quashing of the summons issued to him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to appear before the agency for investigation. The ED had issued summons in February 2019 to Shivakumar to appear before it.
The Income Tax Department, in 2017, conducted a search action at various premises linked to Shivakumar in Delhi. Followed by the Income Tax complaint, ED registered a case in the matter and initiated proceedings against the Congress leader among others.
The petitioner claimed that he is facing illegal proceedings commenced without jurisdiction, erroneously registered for investigating offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and said, “The admitted basis of commencing investigations under PMLA is a criminal complaint filed by the Income Tax authorities which alleges ‘criminal conspiracy’ punishable under Section 120B of IPC, only for alleged commission of such offences punishable under the Income Tax Act and Indian Penal Code, which are not amongst ‘Scheduled Offences’ in PMLA”.
“In absence of any conspiracy for commission of any ‘Scheduled Offence’, no ‘proceeds of crime’, as defined in Section 2(u), can be said to exist. Consequently, ex facie, Section 3 of PMLA cannot apply”, the petition said.
The leader, in his plea said that the High Court, despite recording the following admitted position, erroneously declined to entertain and dismissed the petition.
“In the instant case, the alleged conspiracy is to commit offences under Income Tax Act or Indian Penal Code, which are not amongst Scheduled Offences. If alleged commission of these offences would not render any property, purportedly obtained or derived as a result thereof, as ‘proceeds of crime’ as defined in Section 2(1)(u), conspiracy to commit these offences would not render any such property ‘proceeds of crime’, the petitioner said. (ANI)