Bengaluru Court Jails Ex-Excise Official for 5 Years, Daughter for 3; Five Properties Ordered Confiscated
Bengaluru: A retired Excise official and his daughter have been sentenced to five years and three years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively, in a money-laundering case involving disproportionate assets and funds routed through a wine shop in the daughter’s name. A Bengaluru special court also ordered the confiscation of five immovable properties and directed the registration of a separate perjury case against a defence witness.
The convicted persons are M. Ramachandra, a retired Excise Guard who had served as an in-charge Sub-Inspector, and his daughter R. Yurekha. According to the Directorate of Enforcement’s October 15 press release, the court found the money-laundering offence proved beyond reasonable doubt against both.
The judgment was pronounced on October 14, 2026, by the XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru, CCH-48, in Special Case No. 357/2016. The conviction concerns the offence under Section 3, punishable under Section 4, of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Five Years for Father, Three for Daughter
Ramachandra was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹5 lakh. In default of payment of the fine, the court prescribed two years of simple imprisonment.
Yurekha was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹3 lakh, with one year of simple imprisonment in default of payment.
The court ordered five immovable properties to be confiscated to the Central Government under Section 8(5) of the PMLA. It observed that the offence was against society at large and did not make a separate compensation order, according to the ED.
In deciding the sentences, the court considered Ramachandra’s age—about 72—and Yurekha’s family circumstances as mitigating factors. It nevertheless treated the case as a white-collar economic offence with a deep social impact, the agency said.
Wine-Shop Licence in Daughter’s Name Became Part of the Money Trail
The ED’s account describes a sequence in which Ramachandra misused his official position, unexplained cash entered bank accounts held by him and his family, and funds were used to acquire immovable properties.
The agency identified M/s Kwality Wine Centre in Chamarajpet, a proprietorship in Yurekha’s name, as part of this trail.
According to the release’s account of the findings, Ramachandra used his Excise position to obtain the licence in his daughter’s name. The licence was transferred to her in 2001, when she was still in college.
An explanation that her grandmother had paid the ₹4.5 lakh licence fee and ₹50,000 rent was not supported by records, the ED said.
Cash deposits in the shop’s accounts rose from ₹70,000 in 2001–02 to ₹83.9 lakh in 2008–09. Yurekha declared the shop’s income in her returns, giving the funds an apparent business source, according to the agency’s description of the mechanism.
Hunsur Land Confiscated, Yelahanka Site Excluded
The release draws an important distinction between properties connected with the case.
According to the ED, the court accepted the finding in the underlying corruption case that Ramachandra had provided the ₹5 lakh associated with obtaining the wine-shop licence. Land at Hunsur acquired in 2007 was treated as proceeds of crime and ordered confiscated.
However, Site No. 337 at Yelahanka, acquired in 2010 and paid for from the shop’s own income, was excluded and released.
The different treatment of these properties formed part of the court’s assessment of the source of funds, rather than a blanket confiscation of every asset mentioned in the investigation.
Case Began With a 2009 Lokayukta FIR
The proceedings originated in FIR No. 16/2009, registered by Karnataka Lokayukta Police on July 7, 2009, under Sections 13(1)(e), read with 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Lokayukta charge sheet covered the check period from July 1, 1977, to July 8, 2009. The ED registered ECIR No. 07/BGZO/2009 on October 26, 2009.
During its investigation, the ED provisionally attached eight properties valued at ₹1,09,39,539 through Provisional Attachment Order No. 07/2016, dated March 23, 2016. It filed its prosecution complaint in June 2016.
The eight properties attached during the investigation and the five properties now ordered confiscated represent different stages of the proceedings. The release does not assign the earlier attachment value to the five-property confiscation order.
Earlier Corruption Conviction Found ₹42.48 Lakh in Disproportionate Assets
In the underlying corruption case, Special Case No. 55/2020, Ramachandra was convicted on November 8, 2024, under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
He was sentenced in that case to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹50 lakh.
The trial court assessed his disproportionate assets at ₹42,48,188.50, equivalent to 97.75% of his known income, according to the ED.
That earlier conviction and sentence are separate from the money-laundering judgment pronounced on October 14, 2026.
Court Finds Daughter Knowingly Held Property Bought With Crime Proceeds
According to the ED’s summary, the court found that Yurekha knowingly assisted in holding, in her name, property purchased with proceeds of crime.
The court applied the presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA and found that the accused had failed to rebut it, the agency said. Explanations attributing funding for the Vijayanagar construction to the mother, and purchases of sites to Sharada, lacked documentary support.
The ED said the court relied on findings in the earlier corruption judgment after referring to Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. It also noted that the defence itself had accepted the findings of the underlying judgment.
On the tracing of funds, the court held that the blending of assets did not defeat the case and that, in a disproportionate-assets matter, the disproportionate proceeds constituted the proceeds of crime, according to the release.
The court further treated money laundering as a continuing offence while proceeds remained possessed or were projected as untainted. Consequently, acts predating the commencement of the PMLA did not defeat the charge in this case, the ED said.
Separate Perjury Proceedings Against Defence Witness
In a separate order dated October 14, passed on an ED application, the court directed action against defence witness M. Jayaram, son of H. Mayanna Gowda.
According to the agency, Jayaram initially testified that he did not know Ramachandra. During cross-examination, however, he admitted a family relationship and acknowledged that his earlier statement was false.
The court found a prima facie basis to proceed and directed the Registrar of the City Civil Court to register a perjury case under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The release said the court applied the guidelines in James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand, cited as 2024 INSC 601, and noted that the witness had also testified in the underlying corruption case.
The direction initiates separate proceedings concerning the testimony; it is not a reported conviction of the witness for perjury.
ED Highlights Accountability Beyond the Public Official
The ED said the judgment illustrated how a disproportionate-assets conviction could support a subsequent PMLA prosecution, while family members who knowingly hold or enjoy proceeds of crime could face prosecution even if they were not accused in the underlying case.
The agency also highlighted the court’s findings on the continuing nature of money laundering and the consequences of false testimony about relationships and sources of funds.
The account is based on the ED’s three-page release describing the convictions, confiscation order and separate perjury direction.
About the Author
