Court discharges Pune real estate giant Avinash Bhosale’s son

The case against Bhosale and others, including his company Ara Developers, revolves around the purchase of a plot in Pune that was allegedly meant for the construction of a residential building for bureaucrats. After allegedly manipulating the rules

Mumbai: A special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in the city on Friday discharged Amit Bhosale, son of Pune-based high-profile businessman Avinash Bhosale, in a money laundering case.

Court discharges Pune real estate giant Avinash Bhosale’s son

The case against Bhosale and others, including his company Ara Developers, revolves around the purchase of a plot in Pune that was allegedly meant for the construction of a residential building for bureaucrats. After allegedly manipulating the rules, Bhosales purchased it and constructed the headquarters of his company, Avinash Bhosale Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (ABIL), on it. They were booked by Chaturshringi Police in Pune.

The lawyers for the accused had pointed out that the case registered in Pune was closed by the Pune police, calling it a false case. Besides, only one accused - Ranjit Mohite was prosecuted in the case and was acquitted by the court. Mohite was the person who had sold the property in question to Ara Developers.

The lawyers for the accused advocates Mihir Gheewala and Girish Kulkarni contended that in absence of a predicate offence the case of money laundering does not survive. However, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) submitted that even when the predicate offence is closed, the case of money laundering stands. The closure of the case will not have bearing on the money laundering case, ED argued.

The court after hearing both sides observed that, “ED was made aware of Final ‘B’ Summary Report, yet ED did not challenge the same nor even prefer any appeal against the acquittal of Ranjit Mohite. The period for challenging any summaries is 90 days and the forum provided by the law for the same is the high court. In this way, the silence and inaction on the part of ED, as such, clearly indicates their acceptance regarding the nonexistence of Predicate Offence against accused No.2, 4 and 5. In this way, the said Closure Report by way of Final ‘B’ Summary, has become absolute and attained finality.”

Referring to the latest apex court verdict, the court also noted that ED had no locus to either intervene in the proceedings for closure reports/summaries or even to challenge any order for the same.