9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Complaint Case No. 04 of 2015 was filed by Enforcement Directorate in the court of Special Judge (PML Act) with the allegation that the inspection of factory was conducted by the officers of the Board on 16th July, 2007 and it was found that no pollution control equipment was installed in the factory as per the provisions laid down in the Act. From the record, it is also evident that after purchasing the land in question in the year 2004 for running the factory, the revisionist had applied for consent of the Board in the year 2007 and the inspection of the premises was conducted by the officers of the Board, in which, the pollution control unit was not found. As by way of Act No. 23 of 2019, Explanation clause has been added in Section 2(u) of the PML Act, which clearly provides that the 'Proceed of Crime' include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. Indisputably, in the present case, the cost of the unit, viz. ₹ 2 lac, which was not installed at the factory, is treated as 'Proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the meantime, the Board made a complaint to the Enforcement Directorate vide letter dated 03.01.2013, on which Directorate of Enforcement registered Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) No. 01/PMLA/LZO/2013 on 09.01.2013 for investigation of offence of money laundering under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ''PML Act') to make inquiries regarding suspected 'Proceed of Crime' amounting to ₹ 52,42,525/- generated by the revisionist and his firm out of the commission of Scheduled Offence. After investigation, Complaint Case No. 04 of 2015 (Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Mohd. Iqbal) was filed by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 45 of the Act with the allegation that the Regional Officer, UP. Pollution Control Board vide letter dated 13.02.2014 informed that the value of pollution control equipment, including cyclonic dust collector and a ''chimni' of 70' height to check the air pollution arising from the boiler of 500 kg/hrs. capacity, is ₹ 2,00,000/-, but the same was not installed, thus, the revisionist had generated ''Proceed of Crime' to the tune of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the malicious intent, made a complaint against the revisionist and the firm to the Directorate of Enforcement alleging that revisionist being the proprietor of the firm has been convicted for contravention of Section 37 of the Act, which is also a Scheduled Offence under the PML Act and recommended for prosecution. Directorate of Enforcement taking cognizance on the said complaint on 9th January, 2013, registered a case against the revisionist and its firm being ECIR No. 01/PMLA/LZO/2013 (supra) for investigation to inquire regarding alleged 'Proceed of Crime' generated by the revisionist and his firm. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that in the aforesaid case, in the heading of Material relating to commission of offence and reason to believe that an offence of money laundering has been committed and assessment thereof , it is alleged that the firm is a proprietorship concern of the revisionist and was engaged in the manufacture of commercial plywood of various grades during the period 12.09.1984 to 17.07.2007 for which the firm had not obtained approval from the Board for manufacture of plywood through its aforesaid factory. It is further alleg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L Act before Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Lucknow, which was registered as Case No. 04 of 2015 (supra) with the allegation that by not investing funds legally required for installation of the pollution control equipments, invested in business, therefore, the revisionist had generated ''Proceeds of Crime' to the tune of ₹ 2 lac. Shri Mathur vehemently submitted that ₹ 2 lac cannot be said to be 'Proceed of Crime' as it was the value of the chimney/device, which was to be installed prior to the consent to run the factory. He further submitted that it is undisputed that initially the allegation was that from the factory run by the revisionist, he earned ₹ 52,42,525/- in two financial years, i.e., 2005-06 and 2006-07, but later on, when nothing was found in the investigation of the Enforcement Directorate, a frivolous allegation was levelled that the value of the unit, which was not installed, is a 'Proceed of Crime', which is in sheer abuse of the law. In the meantime, Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2011 (supra) was allowed vide order dated 5th February, 2016 by setting aside the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2011 passed by Special Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ials of the Board informed to the Enforcement Directorate that the revisionist committed offence, for which he was convicted by the Special Court under Section 37 of the Act, which is a Scheduled Offence under para 24 of Part-B. He also submitted that ECIR was registered in terms of the provisions of Section 2y(ii) of the PML Act, which provides for investigation under Part B of the schedule of PML Act for the Scheduled Offences which involve a total value of ₹ 30 lac or more. It was alleged that revisionist earned ₹ 52,42,525/- during the aforesaid two financial years, therefore, the total amount involved in the instant case was more than ₹ 30 lac, but after investigation, when it was found that 'Proceed of Crime' is ₹ 2 lac, complaint was filed against the revisionist, on which, cognizance was taken by the court below. He vehemently submitted that even though the appeal in Scheduled Offence is allowed. Shri Shukla further submitted that the point raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist has already been dealt by Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Director of Enforcement (Writ Petition N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pollution control equipment was ₹ 2 lac. From the record, it is also evident that after purchasing the land in question in the year 2004 for running the factory, the revisionist had applied for consent of the Board in the year 2007 and the inspection of the premises was conducted by the officers of the Board, in which, the pollution control unit was not found. Thereafter, complaint was filed by the Board with the presumption that the factory was running since long back and also reported the same to the Enforcement Directorate, on which, the Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR with the presumption that in two financial years, i.e., 2005-06 and 2006-07 combined sale of final products by the revisionist amounts to ₹ 52,42,525/- which is more than ₹ 30 lacs and, as such, the investigation was started. During the course of investigation, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate asked the cost of the device from the Board, which was not found installed by the revisionist at the time of inspection, then the value of the same was informed by the Chief Environment Officer to be ₹ 2 lac, which amount was treated to be the 'Proceed of Crime'. As by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
