The case revolves around writ petitions filed by six accused individuals, notably including IAS officer Atul Tuteja and his son Yash Tuteja, seeking relief from the charges brought against them.
During the proceedings, Justice AS Oka highlighted the fundamental legal principle that without a predicate offence, there can be no proceeds of crime, thereby challenging the basis of the money laundering allegations. This assertion was made in response to Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), who defended the agency's actions in the case.
Earlier interventions in the legal saga saw the Supreme Court stay proceedings against the petitioners, citing the argument that the ED's case relied on an alleged violation of the Income Tax Act, which does not qualify as a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). However, the latest developments shed new light on the case, with Justice Oka emphasizing that the complaint cannot be sustained in the absence of a predicate offence.
In response to the court's observations, ASG Raju informed the bench that a fresh predicate offence had been registered against the accused, paving the way for a separate Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) to be filed by the ED. However, complications arose as a stay had been placed on the subsequent predicate offence, rendering the fresh complaint ineffective.
Justice Oka, in further deliberations, stressed the necessity of addressing the present complaint, given the absence of a predicate offence and the consequent absence of proceeds of crime. This stance underscores the court's commitment to upholding legal principles while scrutinizing the validity of the charges brought against the accused.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the Supreme Court's deliberations hold significant implications not only for the accused individuals involved in the Chhattisgarh liquor policy scam but also for the broader legal landscape surrounding money laundering cases and the interpretation of relevant statutes. The petitions filed by co-accused individuals Karishma Dhebar, Anwar Dhebar, Arun Pati Tripathi, and Siddharth Singhania, alongside those filed by the Tutejas, add complexity to the legal discourse surrounding the case.
