9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he property purchased. Thus we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Surya Sonal Singh and petitioner Narendra Mohan Singh. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory is hereby rejected. They are directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks from the date of this order and pray for regular bail which shall be considered by the trial court in its own merit. So far anticipatory bail application on behalf of the petitioner Ankita Singh is concerned, taking the fact of provision under section 437 Cr.P.C which makes provision for consideration of bail to the person under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm and also the fact that investigation is complete, prosecution report has been submitted, cognizance has been taken, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Ankita Singh Accordingly, petitionerAnkita Singh in (A.B.A. No.4286 of 2016) is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of her arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of 25,000/ (Rupees twenty five thousand), with two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her investigation, the supplementary complaint dated 14.12.2011 has been filed under the contents/facts of above mentioned complaints dated 14.12.2011 for the offence of money laundering committed by the accused persons, the complainant is the authorized person for filing the supplementary complaint in view of Notification No. S.O.1274(E) dated 13th September, 2005 issued by the Central Government and Government of Indian Notification No. F.N.6/14/2008ES dated 10.06.2008 read with addendum dated 4th August, 2012. It is alleged that an F.I.R bearing number 09/09 dated 02.07.2009 was registered at the police station Nigrani, DistrictRanchi against Shri Madhu Koda and others for the commission of offences punishable under sections 409/420/423/424/465/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 7,10,11 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR was filed on the basis of a complaint filed by one Shri Rajiv Sharma vide complaint no. 01/09 dated 01.07.2009. This case was initially taken up for investigation by the Vigilance Bureau of Ranchi as per order dated 01.07.2009 of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi passed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The investigatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the tune of ₹ 1,75,15,918/ in violation of the above said sections of I.P.C and PC Act. As per chargesheet, several immovable properties, in addition to bank accounts and fixed deposits were identified as acquired by Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, disproportionate to his known source of income. Subsequently, this Court vide order dated 04/08/2011 in W.P.(PIL) No. 4700/2008, transferred the investigations in Jharkhand Vigilance Case No. 09/09 to the CBI for further investigation. In compliance of this order, the Jharkhand Vigilance Case No. 09/09 was reregistered by the CBI as case No. RC5(A)/2010/AHD/Ranchi. On the basis of investigations, the C.B.I also filed a chargesheet dated 26.03.2012 before the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi. Chargesheet filed by the CBI further revealed that accused Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh had acquired disproportionate assets of the tune of ₹ 5,46,07,597/ disproportionate sources of income during the period March, 2005 to July, 2009, in his own name and in the name of his family members while functioning as a public servant and thus, allegedly committed offences under section 109 of I.P.C and under section 13(2)/read w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... immovable properties at Vipul Trade Centre, Gurgaon, having total value of ₹ 1,58,51,003/ (the remaining amount has been paid from the funds identified during check period) as detailed at Annexure4, and has taken possession of the properties. Response to summons issued under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002/ (as amended), Shri Surya Sonal Singh attended this Directorate on 07.09.2011. During his statement, Shri Surya Sonal Singh stated that he had taken loan of ₹ 1,00,00,000/ from his sister namely Smt. Ankita Singh, W/o Shri Narendera Mohan Singh of Mumbai, which was utilized for acquisition of properties at Vipul Trade Centre, Gurgaon. Shri Surya Sonal Singh also submitted copies of acknowledgments of his ITRs, which did not reflect any loan received from his sister. To examine the truthfulness of said loan, statement of Smt. Ankita Singh (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4286 of 2016) was recorded under section 50 of the Act on 12.10.2011. Smt. Ankita Singh confirmed that she had given loan of Rs. One crore to her brother Shri Surya Sonal Singh in two equal installment of Rs. Fifty lacs each on 22.07.2008 and 28.08.2008 after ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh. Further, item 6 of the balance sheet reveals that there is not entry in respect of any sundry debtors/creditors during the year. Thus the submission made by Shri Narendra Mohan Singh during investigation under PMLA that he was in real estate business and he had taken loan from various parties to provide loan of ₹ 1.26 Crore to his wife and that these transactions were duly reflected in his ITR was not only false but was made to mislead the investigation with malafide intent and to save them from legal action. ITRs filed by Smt. Ankita Singh (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4286 of 2016) for A.Y 200910 also revealed that the said transactions with regard to receipt and grant of loan have not been reflected in the ITRs. Smt. Ankita Singh has filed her return of income (ITR1) for A.Y. 200910 on 08.07.2010 declaring income of ₹ 4920/only. The column 24 of the said ITR regarding cash deposits aggregating to ten lakh or more in any savings account in a applied, has been declared as NIL. ITR filed by Shri Surya Sonal Singh for A.Y. 200910 and 201011 was also made during investigations. Shri Surya Sonal Singh has filed his ROI (ITR3) for A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me day that is 22.07.2008 by Smt. Ankita Singh. Again the second installment of loan of Rs. Fifty lacs was given by Smt. Ankita Singh to Shri Surya Sonal Singh on 28.08.2008 vide cheque no. 615533. The account of Smt. Ankita Singh has been credited by ₹ 49 lakhs on 26.08.2009, transferred through the same account number 21536 of a/c no. of Shri Narendra Mohan Singh and also credited by Rs. One lac by cash on 28.08.2009 together leading to transfer of Rs. Fifty lacs to Shri Surya Sonal Singh. The pattern of aforesaid transactions is dubious and the pattern of layering of money in cash can be understood as under; Date; 10.05.2008 500/ 07.07.2008 20,00,000/ 22.07.2008 50,00,000/ 11.08.2008 13,05,000/ Total 83,05,500/ Total cash deposit as on 28..08.2008 during F.Y 200809 in the account of Smt. Anikta Singh (a/c no. 21535); 30.05.2008 500/ 28.08.2008 1,00,000/ Total 1,00,500/ Total cash deposit prior to 29.08.2008 that is the date by which Shri Surya Sonal Singh has got a total loan of ₹ 1,00,00,000/ from her sister namely, Smt. Ankita Singh who, in turn, has stated to have taken a loan of ₹ 1,26,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before the Court of the learned Ist Additional Judicial CommissionercumSpecial Court, Jharkhand, Ranchi on 14.02.2011 only against Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh and on the basis of said complaint the learned Special Judge, Ranchi took cognizance under section 4 of P.M.L.A against Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh on 14.02.2011. It is further submitted that the statements of the complainant stating that Shri Narendra Mohan Singh had not reflected the amounts of loan advanced to his wife namely, Ankita Singh in his income Tax Returns, whereas the Income Tax Return filed by Shri Narendra Mohan Singh clearly reflects that the amount received from third party as well as the amount advanced to this wife namely Ankita Singh is reflected in his Income Tax Return, photo copy of income tax return filed by Shri Narendra Mohan Singh is annexed as Annexure5 to this application. It is further submitted that an amount of ₹ 50.00 lacs is transferred from the account of Narendra Mohan Singh being Account No. 21535 in the name of Ankita Singh with the same bank on 22.07.2008. It is further submitted that the Income Tax Returns filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the petitioner has further submitted that the C.B.I has not treated the properties of petitioner as properties of Kamlesh Kumar Singh meaning thereby the C.B.I conducted the investigation relating to schedule offence had found that the properties of the petitioner has not been acquired by generating money from schedule offence by Kamlesh Kumar Singh and once it has been held then no offence of money laundering is made out against the petitioner. The C.B.I has submitted charge sheet against Kamlesh Kumar Singh and Madhu Singh for the offence under section 109 I.P.C and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act whereas section 109 of the I.P.C is not under the Schedule offence of P.M.L.A and section 13 of P.C Act has been incorporated as a schedule offence by the Prevention of MoneyLaunering (Amendment) Act, 2009 (21 of 2009) w.e.f 1.06.2009 whereas the transactions are of 22.07.2008 and 28.08.2008 and as such the aforesaid transaction will not come under the purview of Money Laundering Act as at the time of transaction section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act was not the schedule offence and Amendment Act, 2009 cannot be given effect to. It is furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd vide cheque No. 718308 date 09.06.2010 drawn on Samata Sahakari Bank amounting to ₹ 20,00,000/ vide cheque No. 723073 dated 17.06.2010 drawn on Samata Sahakari Bank amounting to ₹ 20,00,000/ and vide cheque No. 723075 dated 19.06.2010 drawn on Samata Sahakari Bank amounting to ₹ 10,00,000/ aggregating a sum of ₹ 50,00,000/ were paid back as said MoU was cancelled by a deed of cancellation on 08.06.2010 in between petitioner and M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd and the same can be ascertained from the Ledger copy of M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd in the books of petitioenr alogn with copy of relevant bank statements. It is further submitted that remaining amount of ₹ 50.00/ lacs is transferred from the account of petitioner being Account No. 21536 with Samta Sehkari Bank, Mumbai to Account No. 21535 in the name of Ankita Singh with the same bank on 22.07.2008. It is further submitted that an amount of ₹ 50.00/ lacs was received by the petitioenr from Dynamic Reality on 23.08.2008. The said amount was received by cheque being Cheque No. 440267 dated 23.08.2008 in Account No. 21536 of Samata Sahakari Bank, Mumbai. The sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected in his balance Sheet as well in the balance sheet of Ankita Singh. It is further submitted that grant of loan of Rs. One crore by the petitioner to her brother Surya Sonal Singh has also been duly reflected in the balance sheet of this petitioner. The petitioner being an individual filed her income tax return. The format of the income tax return does not have any column wherein she was required to furnish the details of loan received and advanced. However, the same is duly reflected in the balance sheet attached to the ITR filed by Ankita Singh and the same has duly been acknowledged by the Income Tax Department. It is further submitted that even the assessment of Ankita Singh was reopened under sections 148 of the Income Tax Act and it was found that the said entries were duly reflected and the same can be ascertained from the assessment order for the assessment year, 200910. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs. One crore is transferred from the account of the petitioner being account no. 21535 with Samata Sahkari Bank, Mumbai to the account of Surya Sonal Singh, which was received by the petitioner from her husband Narendra Mohan Singh and ₹ 50.00 lac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quashment of the proceedings, however, this Court on being satisfied that there are sufficient materials constituting an offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has dismissed the said application and therefore no ground for anticipatory bail is apparently made out. Learned standing counsel for the Directorate Enforcement has further submitted that accused Kamlesh Kumar Singh while holding the post of Public Servant that is Minister in the Government of Jharkhand had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income by illegal means. Investigation was carried by the Central Bureau of Investigation in relation to the Schedule Offence that is RC 5(A)/2010AHD R and a chargesheet has been submitted vide Chargesheet No. 3, dated 26.03.2012 against Kamlesh Kumar Singh and his wife Smt. Madhu Singh under section 109 of the I.P.C r/w 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with the allegation he acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of ₹ 5,46,07,597/ during the period of March, 2005 to July, 2009. The Enforcement Directorate registered a case vide ECIR /02/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as projected it an untained property and hence they have committed the offence defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the P.M.L.A. 2002. The channeling of money to accused Surya Sonal Singh was done through the petitioner and the same has also been accepted by the petitioner. At the request of the learned standing counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement, record of Cr.M.P No. 2686 of 2013 has been called for. The learned standing counsel for the Directorate Enforcement referred to para 14 and 15 of the order dated 22.03.2014 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 2686 of 2013 which is quoted below; "14. From perusal of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority as contained in Annexure9 to the petitioners' reply to the supplementary counteraffidavit, it does appear that Adjudication Authority came to the conclusion for the reason that the CBI having investigated the matter, did not find any illegality or irregularity in the transaction of ₹ 1 crore took place between the petitioner no.1 1, 2 and Surya Sonal Singh and the said transaction get reflected from the I.T. Returns and balance sheet of those persons, but the case of Enforcement Directorate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners are being prosecuted for commission of the offence under section 3 of the PML Act." Learned standing counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement has also filed a copy of order dated 01.05.2014 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, at New Delhi whereby both the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the order dated 17.01.2014 passed in original complaint no. 204 of 2013 in provisional attachment order dated 24.07.2013 during the pendency of the appeal. Learned standing counsel for the Directorate Enforcement has further submitted that petitioners are accused of being involved in the activities connected with the proceeds of crime in the instant case and further tried to misdirect the investigation, so considering all these facts, the petitioners do not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the Directorate Enforcement, having gone through the scrutiny of the documents produced on behalf of the parties and the pleadings made in the anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners, material produced by the learned standing counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
