9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said land from own money - Petitioner along with his partner i.e. other accused persons are involved in concealment, possession, acquisition and using properties acquired out of proceeds of crime and projecting the same as untainted, as such, the privilege of anticipatory bail cannot be granted. Application dismissed. - CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44378 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 16-8-2022 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Mohan Mishra, Advocate For the BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the ED : Dr. K.N. Singh, Sr. Adv., ASGI Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, CGC Mr. Amarjeet, JC to ASG Mr. Abijeet Gautam, JC to ASG ORAL ORDER Heard the parties. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Special Trial (PMLA) No-7 of 2018, arising out of Giriyak P.S. Case No.77/2013, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 407, 409, 420 of the IPC, section 7 of E.C. Act. The cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and other accused persons u/s 4 of P.M.L. Act in pursuance of ECIR No. PTZO/02/2016, dated 26.08.2016, the official complaint filed by the Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged that during course of investigation under PMLA, 2002 petitioner-accused confirmed in his statement u/s 50 of the PMLA that M/s Pawapuri Rice Mill is a partnership firm and he looks after the business activity of the firm and all the financial decisions are taken only by him. His statement has been corroborated by accused Binesh Prasad Gupta in his statement dated 06.03.2018. It is further alleged that the details available with official website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India reveals that the Company M/s Pawapuri Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 01.04.2011 with CIN-U15312BR2011PTC01699 having authorized capital of Rs.10 Lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case and petitioner has not committed any offence u/s 420 of the IPC, as such, the provision of the PMLA is not applied. It is further argued on behalf of the petitioner that in an agreement made between the District Manager, BSFC and Pawapuri Rice Mill, the petitioner has signed as a partner and as per the agreement the petitioner had to mill the paddy and had to deposit resultant rice to the corporation and accordingly, petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposit the same to the F.C.I. Dr. K.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate appearing for the Enforcement Directorate has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has not appeared in spite of summons issued to him by the Court and during investigation under PMLA, it is revealed that the petitioner knowingly failed to deposit the rice and misappropriated total 54,165.70 quintals of rice valued at Rs.10.15 Crore was defalcated and equivalent loss was caused to the Exchequer and during investigation, it was established that petitioner and his wife Neelam Devi have acquired huge immovable properties along with other accused without having any legal source and income during the period which are the proceeds of crime. Learned senior counsel further submits that against the alleged proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs.10,15,94,961/-, properties valued at Rs.4,21,85018 have been identified and have been provisionally attached vide PAO No.09/2018 dated 31.03.2018. A Complaint u/s 5(5) of PMLA, 2002 vide O.C. No.947/2018, dated 23.04.2018 was filed before the Hon ble Adjudicating Authority under PMLA for confirmation of the said provisional Attachment Order. The Hon ble A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be guilty of offence of money laundering whereas section 24 of P.M.L. Act is relating to burden of proof which says that in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering u/s 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering . Further, it is submitted that in Appeal No.527, 528, 529 of 2010 in the case of Radha Mohan Lakhotia Mrs. Asha Lakhotia vs. Depute Director, Directorate of Enforcement before the Hon ble High Court of Bombay, it has been observed that: 11. The question is whether section 5 can be invoked against a person who is not named as an accused in the commission of a scheduled offence. The proceeds of crime may be or can be in possession of any person . Be it a person charged of having committed a scheduled offence or otherwise . In the case of any other person in possession of proceeds of crime if it is also found that he has directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property, he shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
