Mumbai Special Court Discharges Former State PWD Minister Chhagan Bhujbal In ED's Maharashtra Sadan Scam Case
A special court in Mumbai designated to hear cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on Friday discharged senior NCP leader Chhagan Bhujbal, his son Pankaj and nephew Sameer in the Maharashtra Sadan Scam case lodged against him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).Special Judge Satyanarayan Navander presiding over the case pronounced the order discharging the Bhujbals,...
A special court in Mumbai designated to hear cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on Friday discharged senior NCP leader Chhagan Bhujbal, his son Pankaj and nephew Sameer in the Maharashtra Sadan Scam case lodged against him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Special Judge Satyanarayan Navander presiding over the case pronounced the order discharging the Bhujbals, while noting that they have already been discharged in the case filed against them by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), with a clear finding that they did not commit any offence.
"Once the accused are discharged from the case of predicate offence, they cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under PMLA. Having regard to the mandate of law, no trial can proceed against the accused persons who are discharged from the case of predicate offence. Also when there are specific findings that there was no generation of proceeds of crime, no question arises of layering or siphoning off the proceeds of crime further. Therefore, the role attributed to the rest of the accused in PMLA case comes to an end. They cannot be prosecuted for the offence of money laundering, when there is no more a case of generation of crime proceeds in existence," the judge said in the order.
To prosecute the accused for the offence of money laundering under PMLA, the existence of scheduled (predicate) offence is must. Existence of predicate offence can only established by proceeds of crime, of which layering or siphoning is possible, the judge noted.
"As such the very foundation of offence of money laundering is the crime proceeds of the predicate offence. In the absence of subsisting predicate offence and existence of “proceeds of crime”, within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, no offence under section 3 read with 4 of PMLA can be made out. The prosecution under PMLA without existence of the proceeds of crime related to the predicate offence is akin to a tree without roots, devoid of legal sustenance and incapable of surviving judicial scrutiny," the judge held.
Further, the judge noted that the ED had traced proceeds of crime and its siphoning, and attached the properties which were allegedly acquired or purchased out of the proceeds of crime of the predicate offence. However, the Appellant Tribunal of SAFEMA had set aside all the provisional and confirmed attachment orders with the observation that those properties cannot be said to have been acquired using the proceeds of crime.
"As such, at present no property is under attachment in the present case. It is necessary to note here that the said orders of the Appellate Tribunal have also not been challenged by the prosecution," the judge pointed out in the order.
The judge further added, "The orders of discharge of accused in the predicate offence have reached finality and also the orders of release of the attached properties have reached finality. Under these circumstances, continuation of the PMLA proceedings for the offence under section 3 and 4 becomes a dead-wood."
Notably, Bhujbal, presently a sitting MLA from Yeola Assembly and a Cabinet Minister holding the portfolio of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection ministry, for the State, was arrested on March 14, 2016, following allegations of money laundering under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PMLA.
His arrest was linked to the alleged irregularities in awarding contracts for the construction of Maharashtra Sadan in Delhi and Kalina Library at Mumbai University during his tenure as Maharashtra's Public Works Department (PWD) Minister.
A public interest litigation filed by the Aam Aadmi Party in 2014 led to the establishment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
Bhujbal was booked in two FIRs under Sections 420, 471, 120B read with 34 of IPC and Section 13(1)(A), 13(1)(D), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act; and for the offences punishable under Section 420, 120B, 109, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC and Section 13(1)(C), 13(1)(D) and 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act respectively. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) filed a chargesheet alleging Bhujbal and his family laundered approximately Rs. 900 crores. On the basis of this case, a money laundering case under PMLA was registered against him.
In September 2021, a Special Court discharged Bhujbal, his son, and others in the corruption case related to the Maharashtra Sadan scam investigated by the ACB. The court found no prima facie evidence of a conspiracy or illegal monetary transactions involving Bhujbal. Bhujbal contended that decisions on awarding contracts were taken collectively and that allegations of kickbacks were unsupported by evidence.
Appearance:
Senio Advocates Abad Ponda and Sudeep Pasbola along with Advocates Sajal Yadav, Niranjan Mundargi, Asim Naphade, Shalabh Saxena, Sudarshan
Khawase, Vipulkumar Jain Arpit Mutha,Jipnesh Jain, Aditya Aiyyer and Tabbasum appeared for All the 45 Accused including Bhujbals.
Special Public Prosecutor Sunil Gonsalves represented the ED.
Case Title: Chhagan Bhujbal vs Director of Enforcement, Mumbai Zonal Office (PMLA Special Case 02 of 2016)