White-collared crime

The Income Tax Department (TN & P), Chennai has obtained its first conviction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988 as amended by Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 (Act No.43 of 2016) (PBPTA). 

According to IT sleuths, the accused Mohammed Bayasudeen was found in possession of Rs. 34,60,000 in cash when they searched him following a tip off from police. Upon inquiries regarding the source of the cash, authorities found that the amount did not belong to him but was given to him by an accomplice Sultan Faumi, also from Chennai.

“The accused Mohammed Bayasudeen was found in possession of Rs. 34,60,000 in cash when they searched him following a tip off from police. Upon inquiries regarding the source of the cash, authorities found that the amount did not belong to him but was given to him by an accomplice Sultan Faumi, also from Chennai.”

“However, he was unable to produce Sultan Faumi even after sufficient opportunities were provided to him,” an official stated.

Subsequently, the case was handed over to the Benami Unit functioning under the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) for a thorough investigation following which authorities booked a case under section 2(9)(D) of PBPTA and the seized cash was treated as benami property and the accused as Benamidar.

A prosecution complaint for offence u/s.53 of the PBPTA was filed against Mohammed Bayasudeen on 30.03.2022 before the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai which was later transferred and heard in the Court of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, VIIIth Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. 

The Principal Special Judge framed the charges after taking cognisance of the offence committed by the assessee. Sheela Bhandari, Special Public Prosecutor represented the Income Tax Department during the trial proceedings in the above case.

On examination of the facts of the case and evidences on record, the Principal Special Judge held that prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had entered into benami transaction as defined under section 2(9) PBPTA in order to defeat the provisions of section 4 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for which, he is liable to be punished under section 53 of the PBPTA. 

On examination of the facts of the case and evidences on record, the Principal Special Judge held that prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had entered into benami transaction as defined under section 2(9) PBPTA in order to defeat the provisions of section 4 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for which, he is liable to be punished under section 53 of the PBPTA. 

The guilt of the accused has been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted under section 53 of the Probibition of Benami Property Transactions amended Act, 2016.

The Principal Special Judge has passed order of judgment holding that the accused is convicted under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence under section 53 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 (Act No.43 of 2016) and the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years (two years) and to pay fine amount of Rs.8,65,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs sixty five thousand only) and in default the accused shall undergo six months Simple Imprisonment consequently.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *