AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sl.
No.",Property Details,"Property in the
name of","Document No. &
value as per the
document","Guidance
value/Valuation per
the PW Department
(Rs.)
A.,"Plot measuring 3500 Sq.
Ft. and bearing ANo.264
at Survey No.76, House
No.264,M.B.Nagar Main
Road, Gubbi Colony,
Gulbarga and house
constructed on it","Shri ShankarKollur
S/o Late
BhimshyaKollur","468
Dt. 29.4.1997","18,60,818/-
B,"House at No. 11-
861/136A, Survey No. 111,
Ashok Nagar, Gulbarga","Smt.Parvathi, W/o
Shankar Kollur","Gift Deed dated
22.8.1982
(unregistered)","2,10,000/-
C,"Agricultural land of 2 acres
30 guntas at Sy.No.125,
Savalgi
Village, Gulbarga","Smt. Parvathi, W/o
Shankar Kollur","3692/56
Dt. 20.08.1992","14,994/-
D,"Agricultural land of 2 acres
30 guntas at Sy.No.125,
Savalgi
Village, Gulbarga","Smt. Parvathi, W/o
Shankar Kollur","3697/56
Dt. 20.08.1992","14,994/-
E,"Shop bearing No.G- 10A,
measuring
175.5 Sq.Ft in the ground
floor,G.K. Complex,
Timmapuri Chowk, Bus
Stand
Road, Gulbarga","Shri Rakesh,
S/o Shri
Shankar Kollur","574
Dt. 25.02.2001","1,65,932/-
F,"Plot along with house
constructed at Survey
No.8,House No. 11-
1791/4A, Vidyanagar,
Gulbarga","Shri Avinash,
S/o Shankar Kollur","749
Dt.19.04.2003","12,07,339/-
Year,Salary Drawn,Savings,,
1975-76,222.00,"4,622.00","Rs.5000 was on hand at the time
of joining the City Corporation",
1976-77,"1,375-00","5,347.00",,
1977-78,"3,261-00","8,308-00",,
1978-79,"4,673-00","12,481-00",,
1979-80,"5,182-00","17,038-00",,
Year,Rent (Rs.),,,
1976-1991,"50,000",,,
1991-92,"20,000",,,
1992-93,"20,000",,,
1993-94,"28,000",,,
1994-95,"28,000",,,
1995-96,"28,000",,,
1996-97,"33,000",,,
1997-98,"34,000",,,
1998-99,"42,000",,,
1999-00,"62,000",,,
2000-01,"1,04,000",,,
2001-02,"1,07,000",,,
2002-03,"1,05,000",,,
2003-04,"1,05,000",,,
2004-05,"1,05,000",,,
2005-06,"1,05,000",,,
2006-07,"1,05,000",,,
2007-08,"1,05,000",,,
2008-09,"1,50,000",,,
2009 to 22.09.2009,"75,000",,,
Total,"14,11,500",,,
Year,Rent (Rs.),,,
1992-93,"10,360.00",,,
1993-94,"12,390.00",,,
1994-95,"14,310.00",,,
1995-96,"16,590.00",,,
1996-97,"18,540.00",,,
1997-98,"18,950.00",,,
1998-99,"22,310.00",,,
1999-00,"25,110.00",,,
2000-01,"28,530.00",,,
2001-02,"29,720.00",,,
2002-03,"21,598.00",,,
2003-04,"20,138.00",,,
2004-05,"22,749.00",,,
2005-06,"23,627.00",,,
2006-07,"26,187.00",,,
2007-08,"23,670.00",,,
2008-09,"30,150.00",,,
TOTAL,"3,64,929.00",,,
Total assets held by the accused and his family members as per
the prosecution",,"Rs.72,35,197/-",,
The items liable to be deleted,,,,
a),"House bearing No. 11/861/136 (A) acquired by the wife
of the accused viz. Parvati from her mother Iravva @
Iramma through gift made in the year 1982","Rs.5,00,000/-",,
b),"The difference valuation of the house constructed at
Badepur standing in the name of accused","Rs.6,90,991/-",,
c),"House bearing No. 11/1791/4A situated at Vidya Nagar
acquired by the wife of the accused viz. Parvati and with
the individual income of her son viz. Avinash","Rs.9,50,000/-",,
d),"Shop No.G-10A situated at G.K. Complex purchased in
the name of Rakesh by the wife of accused viz. Parvati out
of her rental income and tailoring business","Rs.5,00,000/-",,
e),"Sy. No.125 measuring 2 acres 30 guntas situated at
Savalagi-B village which was purchased by the wife of
accused viz. Parvati out of her rental income from one
Bandeppa on 20.08.1992","Rs.2,50,000/-",,
f),"Fixed deposit of Rs.8,00,000/- deposited in the name of
Ashwajeet Educational Society being run by the son of
accused viz. Avinash along with others","Rs.8,01,450/-",,
g),"The valuation of vehicle bearing No.KA-32- 6996
purchased by Rakesh by raising loan from Indian Bank","Rs.7,80,188/-",,
h),"Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle purchased by the son of accused
viz. Avinash out of his business income","Rs.47,700/-",,
i),"The vehicle bearing No. KA-32-7888 purchased
by the son of accused viz. Kirankumar by raising loan
from Crestar Global Finance","Rs.35,788/-",,
TOTAL,,"Rs.45,56,117/-",,
Grand Total i.e. Rs.72,35,197/- (-) Rs.45,56,117/-",,"Rs.26,79,080/-",,
a),"Total assets held by the accused as determined by the
Court","Rs.26,79,080/-",,
b),Total expenditure incurred as determined by the Court,"Rs.37,48,782/-",,
,TOTAL,"Rs.64,27,862/-",,
c),"Known sources of income of the accused as determined
by the accused","Rs.79,07,733/-",,
d),Surplus known sources of income,"Rs.14,79,871/-",,
is already pending before the Special Court. All these arguments can be taken by the appellant, if so required before the appropriate court.",,,,
However, I am of the considered view that once the appellant Sri Chandrahekhar has been acquitted by the Special Court under the Schedule",,,,
Offence after the trial and no appeal has been filed by the State against the said Judgement (as informed by the parties), the appeal is liable to be",,,,
allowed. The complaint under schedule offence was decided on merit after recording the evidence. The FIR was dated 3.8.2010 as well as charge,,,,
sheet have been quashed by the Special Court.,,,,
It has also been seen from the Impugned Order that the reply/documents/materials and evidence filed by the appellant have not been considered,,,,
nor the statement made by Shri Shankar Kollur, Smt. Parvati Shankar Kollur, Shri AvinashKollur and Shri Rakesh Kollur which would show the salary",,,,
income / rental income /agriculture income /tailoring income/ business income/hiring of vehicles /income from civil work/acquisition of movable and,,,,
immovable property and details of sources for acquisition /loans from bank and others/ salary and retirement benefits of Smt. IravvaMareppa mother,,,,
of Parvati Kollur.,,,,
The Provisional Attachment Order has not discussed the source of funds available with the accused. It was merely assumed that the,,,,
accused/appellant had not any savings despite of submitting the material and documents and also from his spouse, son Rakesh and Avinash.",,,,
Even in the impugned order, the plea raised by the appellants were neither discussed nor decided, merely vague approach was taken by the officer",,,,
who is not even judicial member. It is informed that the officer is even not a member(law).He has simply passed the order in mechanical manner.,,,,
The Adjudicating Authority ought to have complied with all the principles of duly conducting a judicial proceeding where rights of the parties are to,,,,
be based on the cogent findings based on the evidence led in the case, as every proceedings under the PMLA 2002 is a judicial proceeding within the",,,,
meaning of section 50 of PMLA Act 2002.,,,,
Sri Shankar Kollurhas already been acquitted in the offence on the basis of allegation made. On the basis of same allegation, prosecution complaint",,,,
under section 45 of the Act is pending. The attached immovable properties were purchased during the period 1982 to 2007. Section13 of PC Act was,,,,
added as schedule offence in PMLA, 2002 w.e.f. 1.6.2009. When the acquittal order was passed, the impugned order and prosecution complaint were",,,,
already available with the respondent.,,,,
No appeal has been filed against the acquittal order and quashing of charge sheet ( as informed by the parties). The complaint was decided on,,,,
merit. The respondent was aware about the said trial. No steps were taken to have the consolidated-trial under schedule offence and prosecution,,,,
complaint.,,,,
In the Judgement, it was recorded that the prosecution has examined large number of witnesses and documents were marked. The statement of",,,,
the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded. The case of the accused is of total denial.,,,,
The respondent is now pressing for another/second trial under PMLA for the same offence/allegations against the appellant. It is not alleged by,,,,
the respondent that the investigation carried out by the respondent under PMLA disclosed additional materials which may require independent trial,",,,,
rather it is found that the investigation and allegation remain the same as conducted by the Police under the schedule offence.,,,,
I am of the considered view that once the main appellant has been acquitted by the Special Court under the Schedule Offence after the trial and,,,,
no appeal has been filed by the State against the said Judgement (as informed by the parties), the appeal is liable to be allowed. The complaint under",,,,
schedule offence was decided on merit after recording the evidence whereby FIR and charge sheet have been quashed by the Special Court.,,,,
Once the acquittal order is passed against the appellant holding that he was not involved in the Prevention of Corruption Act and he has,,,,
purchased/ acquired the properties in legal resources, the question of money laundering does not arise. The allegations are same and ECIR was",,,,
registered on the basis of charge sheet. There were only two options left after acquittal, either to file the appeal against the judgement and the trial",,,,
under PMLA ought to have been conducted along with the trial with the case registered under schedule offence. The respondent apparently did not,,,,
make efforts in this regard.,,,,
Thus, the present appeal is allowed. Both the orders dated 26.7.2016 (provisional attachment order) and impugned order dated 24.3.2016 are set-",,,,
aside. The appeal is allowed. All pending applications stand disposed of.,,,,
As far as the attachment of properties under the provisional order is concerned, the same are liable to be released to the appellant.",,,,
No costs.,,,,