Ahmedabad, Dec 7 (IANS) A Special PMLA Court here sentenced a former Gujarat district collector to five years’ imprisonment and slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 on him for causing a loss of Rs 1.20 crore to the state government during land allotment in Bhuj, an official said on Sunday.

While sentencing former IAS official Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma on Saturday, the Court also ordered confiscation of his assets to the tune of Rs 1.32 crore to the Central government, which were earlier attached by the ED during the course of its investigation into the money laundering cases linked to the decade old offences.

Sharma (ex-IAS), when he was posted as District Collector, Bhuj (Kutch), in connivance with others, entered into criminal conspiracy and allotted government land at lesser rates beyond his authority and thereby caused financial loss to the tune of Rs 1.20 crore to the government of Gujarat.

The then Collector obtained and derived undue monetary benefits in relation to criminal activities, said the ED statement.

“The Special Judge (PMLA), Ahmedabad vide judgement dated December 6 has passed conviction order against the accused Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma (Ex-IAS), in PMLA Case Nos. 02/2016 and 18/2018,” said the ED official in a statement.

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) initiated its investigation based on multiple FIRs registered at different Police Stations in Gujarat [FIR No. 03/2010 dated 31.03.2010; 09/2010 dt. 25.09.2010 registered by CID Crime, Rajkot Zone, Gujarat, and FIR 06/2014 dt. 30.09.2014 by ACB, Bhuj] under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Prevention of Corruption Act.

On Saturday, the Special PMLA Court convicted Sharma for the offence under Section 3 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and rejected the request of accused that his subsequent sentence in this PMLA case may be ordered to run concurrently with his previous sentence.

The Special Court observed that the accused was a IAS officer holding the post of District Collector and District Magistrate who misused his official position by indulging into corrupt practice and indulging in offence of money laundering. “This disentitled him for any discretion by directing sentence to run concurrently,” it said.

The Court observed that both the offences – The Prevention of Corruption Act and the offence under PMLA, 2002 – are different statutes enacted with specific object and when a person is indulged in committing offence under both the statutes.

“Considering the seriousness and gravity of offence, there is no justifiable reason to direct concurrency of sentence and accordingly, the said request of the accused that his subsequent sentence in this case may be ordered to run concurrently with his previous sentence was rejected,” said the Special Court.

Earlier, a discharge application filed by the accused was rejected and on appeal, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, observing, “The law recognises that money laundering is not a static event but an ongoing activity, as long as illicit gains are possessed, projected as legitimate, or reintroduced into the economy.

Thus, the argument that the offence is not continuing does not hold good in law or on facts, and therefore, the judgment of the High Court cannot be set aside on this ground”.

–IANS

rch/pgh