B’luru court orders perjury case against defence witness in case involving ex-excise official (Ld)

Bengaluru, Oct 16 (IANS) A Special Court has ordered the registration of a perjury case against a defence witness for giving false testimony in a money laundering case in which retired excise official M. Ramachandra and his daughter R. Yurekha were convicted and sentenced to five years and three years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively.

The court also ordered the confiscation of five immovable properties to the Central Government.

According to an official statement by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the verdict was pronounced on October 14 by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru (CCH-48), in a case registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Bengaluru Zonal Office.

In a separate order passed the same day on the ED’s application, the court directed the Registrar of the City Civil Court to register a perjury case against defence witness M. Jayaram under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

According to the court’s order, Jayaram, the son of H. Mayanna Gowda, stated during his examination-in-chief that he did not know Ramachandra. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he was related to the accused and acknowledged that his earlier statement was false.

Applying the five guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in James Kunjwal vs. State of Uttarakhand (2024 INSC 601), the court found prima facie grounds to initiate perjury proceedings. The court noted that the same witness had also testified in the original corruption case.

The ED stated that the conviction will have an impact on other cases as well, as the court held that a conviction in a disproportionate assets case under the Prevention of Corruption Act could support a money laundering prosecution, with the accused required to rebut the presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA.

Secondly, family members who hold or enjoy tainted assets are exposed to prosecution, even if they were not accused in the predicate (original) case. The ED noted that, “Pre-2005 conduct is not a shield where proceeds continue to be held or projected as untainted, and Defence witnesses face consequences for false testimony.

The ED further stated, “The court’s order indicates that witnesses who give false evidence about their relationship with the accused or the source of funds can face separate criminal proceedings.”

The court held that money laundering was a continuing offence while proceeds of crime remained in a person’s possession or were projected as legitimate assets. It found his second accused daughter, Yurekha, liable for knowingly assisting in holding property acquired with the proceeds of crime in her name.

While sentencing the accused, the court considered the offence a white-collar economic crime with a significant social impact. It took into account Ramachandra’s age of around 72 years and Yurekha’s family circumstances as mitigating circumstances that a court considers to reduce the severity of a punishment) factors.

–IANS

mka/dpb