The Bombay high court at Goa on Monday quashed the first information report (FIR) registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) back in 2013 in connection with the Goa illegal mining case that was registered following the tabling of the Justice MB Shah Commission report.
On August 12, 2013 Goa’s then director of mines Prasanna Acharya registered a complaint with the Goa police Crime Branch.
Acharya alleged, “persons who are identified in the report of the Central Empowered Committee appointed by the Supreme Court of India, Justice Shah Commission Report and Report of Public Accounts Committee of the State of Goa, along with the others,” hatched criminal conspiracy and illegally extracted mineral ore in violation over several Central and state Acts and rules causing wrongful loss to the State Exchequer to the tune of ₹ 35,000crore and consequent wrongful gain for themselves.
“Thus, in the absence of a subsisting predicate offence, an ECIR becomes legally incomprehensible, and the Enforcement Directorate cannot exercise its jurisdiction. The reason is the PMLA scheme, which gives the Enforcement Directorate authority and jurisdiction only when a predicate offence subsists. Once the predicate offence ceases to exist by reasons of discharge, acquittal or acceptance of a closure report or due to the quashing of the FIR, the Enforcement Directorate cannot proceed further,” the high court also said.
The high court, in its order said that since the Goa police Crime Branch FIR itself was quashed on account of a lack of progress in the investigation for more than a decade, the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered by the ED would also fall. “It is a settled position of law that the authorities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, cannot prosecute any person on a notional basis, unless an offence is registered against them and where such person/persons is/are finally acquitted or a criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, then there can be no offence of money laundering against him,” the high court single judge bench of justice Amit Jamsandekar ruled. “There is nothing on record to show that there was any investigation carried on by the SIT [Special Investigation Team] after registration of the FIR,” the judge observed. The high court noted that “there has been no progress in the investigation since August 2013” and that “the delay in prosecution is not merely a delay; it is an inordinate one.”
