9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t petitioner is that he being the Chartered Accountant of Dr. Pradeep Kumar, the petitioner arranged purchase of a property vide sale deed No.9786 dated 31.08.2009 from Sri Arun Kumar Agrawal and the loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- was taken from M/s. Pathak Telecom Company Private Limited arranged by the petitioner for the co-accused Rajendra Kumar about which loan, the coaccused Rajendra Kumar was not having much knowledge. It is further alleged that Sri Sita Ram Pathak of M/s. Pathak Telecom Company Private Limited was neither knowing the co-accused Rajendra Kumar to whom he gave the loan nor Sri Sita Ram Pathak was knowing Dr. Pradeep Kumar but the petitioner-who was also the Chartered Accountant of Sita Ram Pathak had asked Sita Ram Pathak to transfer a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- in the name of Nandlal HUF which was done without any loan agreement. The repayment of loan was made only after action of C.B.I. in an attempt to project the transaction as genuine and thus, proceeds of crime were actually utilized to make the payments for acquisition of the property and Sita Ram Pathak provided an illegal accommodation entry on the advice of the petitioner to cover this illegal transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Dr. Pradeep Kumar has laundered illicit wealth inter alia with the help of the petitioner. A failure on the part of Dr. Pradeep Kumar and Rajendra Kumar to submit any evidence regarding source of creation of IVPs and KVPs which form the basis of Nandal HUF shows that the proceeds of crime generated by co-accused Dr. Pradeep Kumar were invested in Nandlal HUF which was done on the advice of the petitioner only for the only purpose of concealment of proceeds of crime so that the tainted property could be projected as untainted. The fact that the loan taken by Rajendra Kumar from M/s. Pathak Telecom Company Private Limited and Hindustan Credit Corporation which is a firm managed by the petitioner for acquisition of immovable property but he could not produce any loan agreement and as all the payments for acquisition of immovable property has already been done much prior of the receipt of the loans and the loans have not been reflected in the books of the accounts. Both the transfers made with the bank account of Rajendra Kumar from the M/s. Pathak Telecom Company Private Limited and Hindustan Credit Corporation was arranged by the petitioner and from this, it is evident that Dr. Pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the offence punishable under Section 109 of the I.P.C. and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide Cr.M.P. No.2651 of 2013 and a coordinate bench of this Court held that the question of abetment under Section 109 I.P.C does not arise and quashed the order taking cognizance dated 10.09.2013. It is further submitted that as in the said Cr.M.P. No.2651 of 2013, a coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that Rs. 25.95 lakhs that is the loan amount from M/s. Pathak Telecom Company Private Limited and Hindustan Credit Corporation has not been included in disproportionate assets of Dr. Pradeeep Kumar. The petitioner ought not have been made an accused in the instant case with the allegation that he remained involved in acquisition, concealment and transfer of proceeds of crime and projection of the same as untainted. It is then submitted that Rs. 4,00,000/- were transferred from the account of Hindustan Credit Corporation to the account of Nandlal HUF on 26.12.2008, Rs. 20,00,000/- from Cash Credit account of Nandlal HUF on 18.07.2009 and Rs. 1,95,000/- from the account of Hindustan Credit Corporation to the account o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the proviso, after the words "sick and infirm," the words "or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees" shall be inserted. Learned counsel for the opposite party further submits that the amended Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not suffer from the vice of violation Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India for which the said provision of law was declared unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nikesh Tarachand (supra). Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 reads as under:- 45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- (1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-] (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s defined, which would include concealing, possessing, acquiring or using such property, would be guilty of the offence, provided such persons also project or claim such property as untainted property. Section 3, therefore, contains all the aforesaid ingredients, and before somebody can be adjudged as guilty under the said provision, the said person must not only be involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, but must also project or claim it as being untainted property. ......." It is submitted that it is thus, not necessary that the petitioner must be involved in the predicate/schedule offence. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that cognizance against the petitioner has been quashed vide Cr.M.P. No.2651 of 2013, is not a valid ground for not proceeding against him in this case. It is next submitted that the petitioner is an influential person and there is every chance of his tampering with the evidence once he is given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Hence, keeping in view the seriousness of offence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the serious nature of allegation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
