Bombay High Court Quashes ED Complaint Against Advocate In Anil Deshmukh Case, Finds No Proceeds Of Crime
The Bombay High Court today quashed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case against Kishore Dewani, an Advocate by profession and an alleged close aide of former State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, who is booked in a multi-crore money laundering case. Single-judge Justice Ashwin Bhobe quashed the process and also the ED case against Dewani, who allegedly helped Deshmukh and his family to launder...
The Bombay High Court today quashed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case against Kishore Dewani, an Advocate by profession and an alleged close aide of former State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, who is booked in a multi-crore money laundering case.
Single-judge Justice Ashwin Bhobe quashed the process and also the ED case against Dewani, who allegedly helped Deshmukh and his family to launder the money they allegedly earned illegally by collecting Rs 100 crore per month from various bar owners across Mumbai.
The central agency claimed that Dewani, a close aide of Deshmukh, was the Director of one M/s. Premier Port Links Pvt. Ltd. since 2009, and that his wife and Deshmukh's sons were the joint shareholders of the said firm. The agency further claimed that the Premier Port Links Pvt. Ltd. received loans worth Rs. 2.20 crores from M/s. Flourish Properties Pvt. Ltd., an entity linked to the Deshmukh Family, and that these funds were used to purchase properties in Dhutum Village.
It was this specific transaction which the ED relied on to claim that Dewani's role in permitting and facilitating financial transactions through Corporate Entities under his control, including transactions used for layering and routing of tainted funds was sufficient to prima facie initiate process against the Applicant. The ED claimed that the entire transaction was done with ulterior motive and without any authority on the part of Deshmukh family to execute purchase of land parcels on behalf of Deshmukh family in the name of M/s Premier Port Links Pvt. Ltd. The purchase transactions were done with a malafide intention for hiding its identity at the time of purchase and subsequently by way of purchasing shares of company at nominal price and became 50 per cent owner over the assets of company M/s Premier Port Links Pvt. Ltd.
In his defence, Dewani argued that Premier Port Links Pvt. Ltd. the company jointly owned by him and Deshmukh family (50 per cent each) had purchased certain properties at Dhutum Village in the years 2005-2007. These properties were purchased well before the alleged generation of proceeds of crime, which as per ED is between 2020 and 2021, and thus he argued that no offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, was made out against him.
Dewani argued that the ED chargesheet claims that he had knowledge of the said proceeds of crime, which were generated 15 years after the purchase of the properties by M/s. Premier Port Links Pvt. Ltd.
Having considered the detailed submissions, Justice Bhobe noted that even if the allegations in the chargesheet are taken to be true, the proceeds of crime were generated between December 2020 and February 2021.
"As per the charge-sheet, the Applicant, by entering transactions (sale deeds for the purchase of property at Dhutum Village) in the years 2005-2007, committed an offence under the PMLA, 2002. The other allegation against the Applicant is that he permitted the Deshmukh Family to invest in M/s. Premier Port Links Pvt. Ltd. by raising a loan of Rs. 2.20 crores. The charge-sheet reveals that the Applicant has also invested an equal amount. The supplementary charge-sheet does not refer to any further material qua the Applicant," the judge noted.
After considering the material on record, Justice Bhobe said, "From the material on record, the property purchased by M/s. Premier Port Links Pvt. Ltd. in the years 2005-2007, unarguably, cannot be said to have any connection with the proceeds of crime, as the acts constituting the scheduled offence took place after its acquisition, i.e. after December 2020 and up to February 2021. Even assuming the prosecution's case that the moneys were transferred to the Trust account of the principal accused, Anil Deshmukh, from 2013, the property purchased in 2005-2007 would still have no connection to the proceeds of crime."
The judge further pointed out that the ED was unable to point out any material in the record indicating that the property at Dhutum Village purchased between 2005 and 2007, had any remote connection with the alleged proceeds of crime. It added that the agency was also unable to point out any material to indicate the involvement of Applicant in the crime in question.
What is declared as an offence is knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime, whether by concealment, possession, acquisition, use or by claiming or projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property, the judge noted.
"The property at Dhutum Village, acquired between 2005 and 2007, ex facie, cannot be said to have any connection with the proceeds of crime, as the acts constituting the scheduled offence took place during the period 2020-2021, i.e. after its acquisition. The charge-sheet and the material on record do not make out any case for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002, against the Applicant," the judge held.
Further, while referring to the order under challenge passed on September 16, 2021 by a special PMLA court in Mumbai, Justice Bhobe noted that the said order did not indicate that the Designated Court applied its mind to the material, if any, available against Dewani.
"The said aspect has not been considered in the order dated September 16, 2021. The test of 'sufficient ground for proceeding' against the Applicant is not satisfied. No reasons are found in the order to conclude that there is prima facie ground to proceed against the Applicant. The order, is therefore bad in law and liable to be set aside," Justice Bhobe ordered.
With these observations, the court quashed and set aside the process order against Dewani and also the ED Complaint against him.
Appearance:
Senior Advocate Sunil Manohar along with Advocates Pralhad Paranjape, Sakshi Jogdand and Omkar Prashant Mulekar appeared for the Applicant.
Special Counsel Prashant Mishra and Advocates Bharat Jadhav and Krish Kariya represented the ED.
Additional Public Prosecutor Pallavi Dabholkar represented the State.
Case Title: Kishore Pessulal Dewani vs Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Application 1075 of 2023)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 78