Justice NJ Jamadar noted that the investigating agency Enforcement Directorate (ED) had primarily relied on statements of dismissed Mumbai cop Sachin Waze who was co-accused in the case.
His statements claimed that an amount of ₹1.71 crores was transferred during the months of February and March, 2021 allegedly extorted from the bars owners and handed over to Deshmukh’s personal assistant, Kundan Shinde.
However, the statements of Waze lack certainty, the Court stated.
“These statements ex-facie cannot bear weight of the allegation of generation of proceeds of crime out of the alleged predicate offence of exercise of influence over the transfers and postings of the police officials. These statements ex-facie lack the element of certainty as to the source, time and place. They prima facie appears to be hear-say,” the Court said.
A predicate offence is a crime which is a component of larger crime. An offence like money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) begins with an offence under the Indian Penal Code, which is considered the predicate offence.The monetary advantage which the accused received from the act is termed as ‘proceeds’ of the crime.
The Court in the present case concluded that the witness statements collected by ED allegedly in support of the allegations failed to point out with certainty what exact criminal act was committed by Deshmukh and how that helped him generate the proceeds for crime.
It also opined that Waze’s tenure as a cop was controversial.
Further, Waze’s statements along with those of former IPS officer Param Bir Singh were purportedly made after learning or hearing that money changed hands.
“All these factors if considered on the anvil of the test enunciated in the case of Ranjitsingh Sharma (supra) may persuade the Court to hold that, in all probabilities, the applicant may not be ultimately convicted,” the Court said.
Source link