9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ]. So far, the case of Rekha Nambiar Vs. CBI (is considered the offences involved in that case were not the offences punishable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 but the offences relating to schedule offence under Penal Provision for the offences punishable under section 109 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, the ratios of these two judgments, in the considered opinion of this court, are of not much help to the petitioner. There is no dispute regarding the settled principle of law regarding the materials to be considered by the trial court while considering the discharge petition as also framing of charge but coming to the facts of this case, this court finds that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of having laundered money to the tune of Rs.7,97,96,888/- and also there is specific allegation of adopting three modus operandi for the same. There is no illegality in the impugned order - Petition dismissed. - Cr. Revision No.905 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2022 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose but which companies were not having any business activity. It is further alleged that the acquisition of disproportionate asset by the petitioner while working as public servant is punishable offence under Section 13(2) read with 13 (1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in this respect, Vigilance FIR. No. 09 of 2009 dated 02.07.2009 was registered before the Vigilance Police Station Ranchi, and subsequently in terms of the order dated 04.08.2010 in WP(PIL) No.4700 of 2008 passed by a Bench of this Court the investigation was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation and the C.B.I. re registered the caseas RC 05(A)/10 AHD R dated 11.08.2010 and after due investigation of the case, the Charge Sheet No. 07 of 2011 dated 22.12.2011 has been submitted inter alia against the petitioner which is schedule offences of this case which has been instituted against the petitioner and others for having committed the offences punishable under section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It is further alleged that the petitioner has illegally acquired Rs.7,97,96,888/ and laundered the said money with the aid and assistance of the co accused person s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial court after taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner as place d before it including the charge sheet found that there is sufficient material to frame the charge inter alia against the petitioner and rejected the petition of discharging the petitioner from this case. 4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Special Judge fail ed to appreciate the materials in this record in its proper perspective and could not apply his judicial mind while passing the impugned order and also failed to consider the facts that the petitioner comes from a family of landlord and after partition 27 acres of land came to the individual share of the petitioner and earning of the petitioner is Rs.5 lakhs per year from the proceeds of the agricultural land. It is further submitted that the schedule offence has not been committed by the petitioner and there is no basis to submit charge in the scheduled offence. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge failed to consider that Smt. Santoshi Devi and Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, late Ravindra Pratap Singh and others, in whose name the properties have been said to have been purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India in the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and Ors. Reported in (1990) 4 SCC 76 para 6 of which reads as under: 6. The next question is what is the scope and ambit of the consideration by the trial court at that stage. Can he marshal the evidence found on the record of the case and in the documents placed before him as he would do on the conclusion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution after the charge is framed? It is obvious that since he is at the stage of deciding whether or not there exists sufficient grounds for framing the charge, his enquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding if the facts emerging from the record and documents constitute the offence with which the accused is charged. At that stage he may sift the evidence for that limited purpose but he is not required to marshal the evidence with a view to separating the grain from the chaff. All that he is called upon to consider is whether there is sufficient ground to frame the charge and for this limited purpose he must weigh the material on record as well as the documents relied on by the prosecution. In the State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. Learned senior counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 para 12 of which reads as under: Now the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of l aw is that the Judge while considering the question of fram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd to show that the victim of that case had ever got any favour from the accused and that the accused was instrumental in awarding any contract to the petitioner of that case discharge d the petitioner of that case from the allegation of amassing assets dis proportionate to the known sources of the income of her husband. 7. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No.253 of 2018 arising out of ECIR/02/Pat/09/AD(D) by which the petition er prayed for discharge of the petitioner of the offences mentioned in the charge sheet which has been submitted against him in the said case be set aside and the petitioner be discharged of the said offences. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also filed interlocutory application being I.A. 217 of 2021 with a prayer to quash/set aside the order dated 04.06.2018 passed by Learned Special Judge, CBI cum PML Act, Ranchi whereby learned Special Judge, CBI framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 3 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Ac t, 2002 against the petitioner and the co accused U.S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Judge, CBI and in the absence of any illegality in the same, this revision petition as well as interlocutory application being I.A. No.217 of 2021 being without any merit be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submission made at bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the facts of the case of DSP Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran (supra) and the case of Rekha Nambiar Vs. CBI (are entirely different from the facts of this case as the case of DSP Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran (supra) is a case where the appeal was considered by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India where the trial court did not consider the defence evidence in its proper perspective but it is settled principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of the accused could not be considered as held by Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , Bengaluru reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768 para 29 of which reads as under: 29. It is not open to the accused to rely on the material by way of defence and persuade the court to discharge him. 10. So far, the case of Rekha Nambiar Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was found that such persons who have allegedly donated their money to the said trust, have no means to make do nation (iii) The third modus operandi is that by establishing two front companies namely M/s Sonanchal Buildcon (P) Ltd. and M/s Angesh Trading Co. (P) Ltd., both located at Delhi; huge amount of money was shown to have been received by the said two companies by selling their shares though in fact the shares of the said companies were never sold and there is further allegation that the companies paid cash to grain merchants and obtained cheques from them and these companies have not been doing any business as such and the statements of such grain merchants who received cash from the said 2 front companies in lieu of cheques have been recorded during the investigation of the case. 11. Hence, this court is of considered view that, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI in Misc. Criminal Application No.253 of 2018 arising out of ECIR/02/Pat/09/AD(D). Accordingly, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
