9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lone, it would be preposterous to conclude that the petitioner has generated any money in the form of 'Proceeds of Crime'. Regarding the specific allegations of his having purchased Pseudoephedrine worth ₹ 68 lacs in 2012, and of having sold it subsequently to one Suresh Kumar alias Mehnga Ram for ₹ 70 lacs, first of all, there is no document to support the allegations of such transactions, and more importantly, there is no explanation or indication by the complainant/respondent whatsoever to show as to in what manner, the petitioner had been engaged in projecting or claiming the aforesaid 'Proceeds of Crimes' as 'untainted property', which is an essential ingredient to constitute the offence of Money Laundering as defined u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and (ii) FIR No.50 dated 03.04.2013, Police Station Urban Estate, Patiala, under Sections 18, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act. He was granted bail in both those cases earlier by this Court in CRM-M-24317 of 2014 and CRM-M-3593 of 2015, vide orders dated 6.10.2014 and 23.2.2015 respectively. Now, he claims to have been falsely implicated in the present complaint case for the alleged offence u/s 4 read with Section 45(1) of the PML Act. He further claims to have already been subjected to interrogation on 5.8.2014, while in judicial custody in the previous two NDPS cases, on which date, he was allegedly coerced to give a self implicating confessional statement under illegal and undue press ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.2015 and subsequently Original Complaint No.542/2016 dated 11.01.2016 has been filed before the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, New Delhi for confirmation of the same. The Adjudicating Authority (PMLA), New Delhi has confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order vide order dated 10.06.2016 in Original Complaint No.542/2016. 4. Besides, the complainant has asserted that the petitioner is the owner of Flat No. C-35, Plot No. 27/1, Ahinsa Vihar, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi, the present value of which is in the range of ₹ 1.5 Crore to 1.75 Crores. The complainant/respondent has also in its reply drawn attention to various bank transactions of petitioner's business concern by the name of 'M/s Ajay Trading Company' and has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nclude that the petitioner has generated any money in the form of 'Proceeds of Crime'. 6. Regarding the specific allegations of his having purchased Pseudoephedrine worth ₹ 68 lacs in 2012, and of having sold it subsequently to one Suresh Kumar alias Mehnga Ram for ₹ 70 lacs, first of all, there is no document to support the allegations of such transactions, and more importantly, there is no explanation or indication by the complainant/respondent whatsoever to show as to in what manner, the petitioner had been engaged in projecting or claiming the aforesaid 'Proceeds of Crimes' as 'untainted property', which is an essential ingredient to constitute the offence of Money Laundering as defined u/s 3 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
