Pradeep Koneru v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

1. The applications have been filed on behalf the petitioner for recall of the judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 384/2019.

2. It is submitted that the aforementioned petition has been dismissed without dealing with any of the grounds raised by the petitioner and without dealing with the submissions made in the written submissions which were placed on record. Several grounds had been raised to show why the FIR R.C. No. 224/2017 deserved to be quashed against the petitioner, but in paragraph 83 of impugned judgment several findings have been given which are not supported by pleadings of the either party. It has been pointed out that petitioner Shri Pradeep Koneru was only a witness in PMLA and was never arrested in the said case.

3. Ld. Senior Advocate has vociferously submitted that in certain paragraphs of the impugned judgement, it has been wrongly stated that the petitioner, Pradeep Koneru had been stated to be an accused in PMLA case, Digitally which is admittedly incorrect and these observations have caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.

4. Sh. Shohaib Hussain, ld. Spl. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent ED, has admitted that Petitioner was only a witness in the PMLA case, though an accused in the CBI case.

5. Submissions Heard.

6. At the outset, we may observe that though two Petitions were filed by the Petitioner, but instead of separately stating facts and the challenge to proceedings under PMLA and CBI case separately, they have been mixed up in the two Petitions. During the course of arguments, Ld. Senior Advocate conceded that there were some typographical errors in the impugned Order, which may be rectified.

7. The first typographical error is in paragraph 22 of the impugned Order where while referring to Section 50 of PMLA, in the last line it has been observed that he has been subsequently arrested and his status changed from being a witness to the accused. It is erroneous in so much as the petitioner was never arrested in PMLA case and has always continued to be a witness therein. In the said paragraph while the first four lines were in respect of PMLA, the subsequent lines were in respect of the proceedings undertaken by the CBI. The last lines are hereby clarified to read as under: “He was subsequently arrested in a CBI case, wherein his status became that of an accused.”

8. Similarly, in paragraph 45, the last four words “arrayed as an accused” is corrected to read as “arrayed as a witness”.

9. In paragraph 54, it is hereby clarified that the third line which reads as “however, he has later been arrayed as an accused and Loc has been Digitally issued against him” is qualified by the words “in the CBI case”. It is hereby clarified that the petitioner had been arrayed as an accused and LOC opened in the CBI proceedings.

10. In paragraph 75 it has been indicated that the petitioner and his brother Madhu Koneru were arrested by CBI on 03.11.2011, though Madhu Koneru was never arrested by CBI and prosecution against him had been quashed by the Andhra High Court. Therefore, in paragraph 75 the words “his brother Madhu Koneru” stands deleted.

11. Paragraph 83 reads as under: “Satish Babu Sana and Pradeep Koneru have, thus, prima facie committed offence of money laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 by directly or indirectly indulging in, knowingly assisting, knowingly a party and actually involved in all or any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property.”

12. However, undisputedly Pradeep Koneru was only cited as a witness in the PMLA case. Therefore, paragraph 83 is factually incorrect and stands deleted.

13. The relevant part of paragraph 85 reads as under: “Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners in the case registered by the CBI were arrayed as the witnesses to a case under scheduled offences. However, during the process of investigation, case under the provisions of PMLA has been registered wherein they have been arrayed as accused.”

14. The last word of the above part of paragraph 85 be read as “arrayed as witnesses”.

15. There were only typographical errors in the impugned Order, which Digitally hereby stand rectified, as discussed above. There is no ground for recall of the impugned Order, as has also been conceded by Ld. Senior Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner.