9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, Shri Aakraman Jee @ Rabindra Ganjhu, Shri Anishchay Ganjhu, Shri Dipu Singh @ Bhikhan, Shri Bindeshwar Ganghu @ Bindu Ganghu and Shri Bhikhan Ganghu used to extort levy from the contractor, Transporters, Delivery Order Holders and Coal Merchants and hand over the same to T.P.C. organization. In case of non-payment of levy, they used to threaten them with dire consequences. For verification of secret information, a team of police officials was constituted and raid was conducted by the team at the house of Binod Kumar Ganjhu on 11.01.2016 and recovered cash of Rs.91,75,890/- and two mobile phones and Munesh Ganjhu and Birbal Ganjhu were also found in suspicious conditions and from their possession one loaded Mouzer Pistol and one country made pistol and two live cartridges of caliber were recovered from Birbal Ganghu and from Mukesh Ganjhu respectively and they disclosed that they had connection with T.P.C. extremist organization and Binod Kumar Ganjhu also disclosed that he was working for T.P.C. as Chairman and after collecting the levy amount, the same was distributed among them. On disclosure being made by Binod Kumar Ganghu, house of Pradeep Ram was also raided and a sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of the "SHANTI SAH SANCHALAN SAMITI" for each village namely Winglat, Honhe, Kumrang Khurd, Kumrangkala and Udsu having 7 members from each village wherein Bindeshwar Ganjhu @ Bindu Ganjhu was president of Honhe village. The overall responsibility of the committee was given to Bindeshwar Ganjhu @ Bindu Ganjhu. Binod Kumar Ganjhu and Bindeshwar Ganjhu @ Bindu Ganjhu used to hand over the levy amount to Akarman Ji @ Ravinder Ganjhu who was the regional commander in T.P.C. having specified areas including Tandwa, Magadh Amarpali. In the absence of Binod Kumar Ganjhu and Bindeshwar Ganjhu @ Bindu Ganjhu, Pradeep Ram worked on behalf of Bindeshwar Ganjhu @ Bindu Ganjhu and collected levy for TPC and committee. During investigation, it was also revealed that Binod Kumar Ganjhu, Proprietor of M/s Bhogta Constructions and Pradeep Ram proprietor of M/s Pradeep Traders also used to transport the coal on behalf of other transporters and collect the levy amount through the accounts of M/s Bhogta Constructions and M/s Pradeep Traders respectively. Likewise Bindeshwar Ganjhu @ Bindu Ganjhu was also Director of M/s Maa Gange Coal Traders Ltd. Registered address H No-11, Honhe village Honhe, P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shah Vs. Union of India & Anr. (Nikesh Shah) as such same would not apply while considering bail application of the applicant. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon the following case laws:- 1. P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement MANU/SC/1670/2019;2020 (1) BLJ 200. 2. Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. MANU/SC/1480/2017. 3. Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI MANU/SC/1375/2011; 2012 (1) SCC 40 4. State of Kerala Vs. Respondent: Raneef MANU/SC/0001/2011; 2011 SCC 784. 5. Binod Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand MANU/JH/0089/2013 6. Madhu Koneru Vs. The Director of Enforcement (MANU/TL/0393/2021) 7. HDFC Bank Limited Vs. Government of India and Ors. (MANU/BH/0417/2021 8. Anil Tuteja and Ors. Vs. The Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Ors. (MANU/CG/0463/2020) 9. Arun Kumar Mishra Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (MANU/DE/1095/2015) 10. Upendra Rai Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (MANU/DE/2194/2019) 11. Ahilya Devi Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (MANU/BH/0245/2020) 12. Opto Circuit India Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank and Ors. (MANU/SC/0049/2021) 13. Vinod Bhandari Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of En ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the [proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money laundering. 4. Punishment for money-laundering. - Whoever commits the offence of money-laundering shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Provided that where the proceeds of crime involved in money-laundering relates to any offence specified under paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, the provisions of this section shall have effect as if for the words "which may extend to seven years", the words" which may extend to ten years" had been substituted." 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there are no reasonable ground from the materials on record, against the applicant, that he has committed the alleged offence of money laundering. It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 has been declared unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the schedule" has been substituted with "accused of an offence under this Act......" 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate vs. Dr. V.C. Mohan" 2022 LL (SC) 16 held once the prayer for bail is made for the offence under PMLA 2002, the rigors & principle underlying Section of 45 get triggered on. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Gurbaxani v. The Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2021 SCC Online P & H 1567 has held as under:- "...............18. By Act 13 of 2018 Section 45 (1) of the PMLA was sought to be amended w.e.f. 19.04.2018. Through such amendment the words "punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule" as occurring in Section 45(1) before the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah's case (supra) were substituted with the words "under this Act". As per learned ASG, after such amendment, the defect on the basis of which the Supreme Court had declared Section 45(1) of the PMLA to be unconstitutional was cured and consequently the twin conditions prescribed in Section 45(1) stood revived. 15. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
