9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 8.6.83 when it was dissolved and business taken over by a Private Limited Company known as the Punjab Phosphates (P) Ltd. (PPPL for short) again with its registered office at Amritsar. Petitioner No. I claims to be its Managing Director while petitioner No. 2, a Director. The Union of India, the first respondent introduced a scheme of subsidy to sustain and ensure the healthy development of phosphate industry in the year 1976. To reap the benefit of this scheme, the firm gave the required undertaking regarding the manufacture and sale of phosphate fertilizers. Although a copy of such undertaking is not available with the petitioners containing the material terms and conditions. One of its terms is claimed to be as follows:. WE futher undertake that if the aforesaid amount is not credited by us in the time limits specified above, we shall pay interest at the rate of 2.5% above the ruling bank rate for working capital loans as prescribed in the Government of India specimen of Undertaking/ Agreement or at the rate as Fixed from time to time. We also undertake and promise to abide by the decisions of the Committee which is final and binding on all matters relating to the determina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accountants of the Company. It was also required that the bills of subsidy claims be submitted through the State Government - in this case the Government of Punjab, to the office of the Director, Fertilizer Industries Coordination Committee. New Delhi. (DFICC for short). The prosecution learnt that in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, the first petitioner in his capacity as Managing Director of Pppl dishonestly and fraudulently submitted bogus subsidy claims in the office of Dficc from December, 1980 to March, 1983, with bogus certificates through the State Government of Punjab without manufacturing any such fertilizer in his above said factory and in this manner claimed and received a total amount of ₹ 2,64,55,776.00 on the strength of the bogus certificates of manufacture, sale etc. of fertilizer from DFICC. The Dficc is alleged to have dishonestly and fraudulently passed amounts against such bogus subsidy claims without verifying the genuineness of the supporting documents/certificates which they were required to do. In December, 1986 the Pppl itself registered with the District Industries Centre, Bahadurgarh, Haryana and showed its factory to be located in vil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners. Further case of the petitioners is that under Section 102 of the Code nly souch property can be seized which may be alleged to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. In the present case, it is alleged that the situation is quite reverse and therefore, the power under Section 102 of the Code cannot be exercised. Only movable property capable of being actually seized could be seized under Section 102. Bank accounts and money lying in deposit cannot be deemed to have created suspicion of an offence. There are no circumstances any offence. The petitioners, therefore, seek quashing of the orders/ directions issued by the Cbi to the banks and other Financial Institutions. (5) Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents. Reply has been filed on behalf of theCBI. The main grounds appearing in the reply are that petitioners I and 4 who were the Directors of M/s Pppl had fabricated documents showing procurement of raw materials from different agencies, manufacture of Fertilizers in their so called factory and sale of the same to fictitious persons. In fact the business of the petitioner was establ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... keys of such lockers were recovered from the residential premises of the first petitioner. Petitioners 5 to 9 are the wife, daughters and son of first petitioner. Except the wife, they were all college and School going children and the first petitioner without their knowledge showed deposits in their names just by forging their signatures himself. It is further stated that the 11th petitioner Kishan Chand is none also than the first petitioner himself. Similarly the 27th petitioner B. Beena (Bhola Rani) is none else than Savita Parmar, the 5th petitioner who is the wife of first petitioner. Petitioners 12 and 13 (husband and wife) are actually pauper having no sufficient means or any landed property or business to support them. Both of them have been getting old age pension at the rate of ₹ 50.00 per month from the District Social Welfare Office Gurdaspur on the recommendation of the Village Pardhan and District Authorities. But the first petitioner has forged accounts in their name also. The first petitioner is also alleged to have got issued a legal notice to Secretary to Ministry of Home Affairs that the property seized from the first petitioner by the Cbi had been gifted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held not to be sufficient to attract Section 102 because it could not be that the bank account had been traced or discovered in circumstances which made the police aware of the commission of the offence. In the second case, there was a complaint against the petitioner that a bogus account had been opened by him in Punjab Sind Bank in the name of a firm representing himself to be its sole proprietor and that he had deposited cheques of huge amounts issued by customers in favor of the said partnership illegally in the said account in conspiracy with others. There was a firm of that name in existence of which the petitioner was only an employee and thus he had opened a bogus account to divert the amounts of cheques to the tune of about ₹ 40 lacs from the accounts of the real partnership. He used to withdraw the amounts later on for acquiring different properties either in his name or in the names of his close family members. This court held that the deposits made with Ansal Properties for acquiring immovable properties by the petitioner and his close family members had not created any suspicion in the mind of the investigating officer with regard to the commissions of any off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accusing finger upon the first petitioner. Similarly the allegations of the Cbi that the first petitioner has opened the accounts in the name of his wife, daughters and son by forging their signatures is in itself an attending circumstance which is sufficient to set the machinery of criminal law in motion against the first petitioner. (8) Besides that, during the investigation the prosecution also come to know that without actually manufacturing phosphate and fertilizers, the first petitioner withdrew as much as ₹ 3.39 crores as subsidy from the Govt. of India by producing bogus documents. The question, therefore, would arise that if the firm/company started by the petitioner did not in fact manufacture the fertilizer or even procure the raw material etc. and obtained huge amounts of subsidy from Govt. of India, where such amounts have been kept/invested by the first petitioner? It was only in consequence of such weighty suspicions against the petitioners, who are alleged to be none other than the show pieces of the first petitioner, that amounts of subsidies drawn by him were presumably kept in various bank accounts, lockers and invested in various policies by the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
