9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar, who is stated to be a security guard of the applicants. The investigation from the GST Department has also revealed that the aforesaid M/s Madhu Enterprises made business transactions worth crores of rupees with three entities of which the present applicants were director and despite that said fact, the applicants have been evading from giving details of the said transaction. The ratio of the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal [ 2023 (10) TMI 175 - SUPREME COURT] relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has no application to the facts of the present case as the answers being given during investigation of the case, are on the face of it, totally evasive. This Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary to unearth entire chain of transactions linked with M/s Madhu Enterprise at the behest of the present applicants and the entities in their control - Application dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the case. During interrogation, he revealed that he was working as security guard in the family-owned firm/companies of the applicant. The Security guard was interrogated in detail who revealed that copies of Identity-related documents in the name of opening of bank account for credit of salary in the account were obtained from him. During further interrogation, it has been revealed by the said employee that though the documents were obtained in the name of opening of bank account, however, he has never been informed regarding the bank accounts opened if any, in his name. 5. During further course of investigation, Mr. Sanjay Singh who was the personal security officer (PSO) of Mr. Shashi Kant Gupta (father of the present applicant) was also interrogated in this case. During interrogation Mr. Sanjay Singh stated that Shashi Kant Gupta had registered the firms in the name of his employees namely Rajesh, Rawat, Ashish, Sourabh, Mohit, Surjeet, Raju, Umesh. He further stated that he also came to know that Shashi Kant Gupta had got opened the bank accounts in the name of his employees in Bandhan Bank. 6. Further, concerned relationship manager namely Adesh Kumar of Band han B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Bank as mentioned above. Further, on analysis of replies/documents received from GST department, details of purchasers of articles who purchased the goods/articles from the accused firm namely M/s Madhu Enterprises during the entire period of commission of offence has been found as under: Sr. No. Name of firm/company Directors/proprietor partners Goods sold by accused company 1. AUD Enterprises Ram Kanwar Yadav (Proprietor) 3,28,64,475/- 2. Soami Enterprises Dheerendra Kumar (Proprietor) 56,37,450/- 3. Delight Poly Plast Shashi Kant Gupta (Partner) Akshay Gupta (Partner) 45,31,200/- 4. Global Traders Surjeet Singh Gusain (Partner) Rajesh Kumar (Partner) 45,21,760/- 5. Shashi Plast Pvt. Ltd. Shashi Kant Gupta (Director) Akshay Gupta (Director) 22,65,600/- 6. Parfait Dealers Surjeet Singh Gusain (Partner) Ashutosh Kumar Thakur (Partner) 7,91,30,800/- 7. Delight Plastics Akshay Gupta (Proprietor) 7,91,30,800/- 8. Ashish Enterprises Bhawan Kumar (Proprietor) 50,59,250/- 9. From the above table, it is found that the accused firm M/s Madhu Enterprises, which was fraudulently registered using the PAN number of the complainant, ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal Nos. 3051-3052 of 2023 titled 'Pankaj Bansal v. Union of Indian and Ors' (2023INSC866) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in particular, the following paragraph thereof: "25. We may also note that the failure of the appellants to respond to the questions put to them by the ED would not be sufficient in itself for the Investigating Officer to opine that they were liable to be arrested under Section 19, as that provision specifically requires him to find reason to believe that they were guilty of an offence under the Act of 2002. Mere non-cooperation of a witness in response to the summons issued under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 would not be enough to render him/her liable to be arrested under Section 19. As per its replies, it is the claim of the ED that Pankaj Bansal was evasive in providing relevant information. It was however not brought out as to why Pankaj Bansal's replies were categorized as 'evasive' and that record is not placed before us for verification. In any event, it is not open to the ED to expect an admission of guilt from the person summoned for interrogation and assert that anything short of such admission would be an 'evasive reply'. In Santosh S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Section 132 of the GST Act had been registered at P.S. Sonipat, Haryana, against the present applicants. 8. Learned APP for the State relied upon the portion of the additional status report filed by the Investigating Officer, which reads as under: "8. That the applicant on being asked about details of business transactions of his firms/companies with the suspected firms/companies, the applicant simply stated that he did not remember anything as the documents have been seized by GST Jamshedpur. It is pertinent to mention here that search was conducted by GST Jamshedpur on 22.04.2019 at 02 premises of the applicant whereas the transaction of the applicants firms/companies with the suspected firm M/S Madhu Enterprises ranges from July 2019 to November 2019. 9. That the applicant when questioned and confronted with records and statements gathered during investigation, gave no reply and rather stated that he did not remember anything. Some of the relevant questions and their replies given by the applicant are reproduced below- Ques. Under-mentioned are the names of few persons. Do you know any of them? Does any of these persons is associated with you or with any of your com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent that you and your son Akshay Gupta introduced Surjeet Singh Gusain, Ashutosh Kumar Thakur, Ashish Kumar, Saurabh Kumar, Gaurav Kumar, Rajesh Thakur, Rawat ji and facilitated in opening the bank accounts. You introduced them as your business associate and told him that they are running the firms namely (1) Verizon Enterprises (2) Impact Enterprises (3) Gupta Traders (4) Hira Plastics (5) Glencore enterprises (6) Paralait Dealers (7) Atlas Sales Traders (8) Banke Bihari Traders (9) Divyanshi Enterprises (10) Global Traders (11) Chaudhary Plastics. What you want to say regarding this? Ans. I don't remember anything about it. Ques. Who is Sanjay Singh? Does anyone by the name of Sanjay Singh ever worked for you or your companies? Ans. I don't know any Sanjay Singh. No Sanjay Singh ever worked for me or any of my company Ques. In his statement Sanjay Singh stated that he worked as your personal security officer (PSO). He also mentioned that, Shashikant Gupta registered various firms in the name of Rajesh, Ashish, Sourabh, Mohit, Surjeet, Ramesh, Umesh. What was the purpose of registration of these firms in the name of the afore-mentioned persons? Ans. I don't remembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd despite that said fact, the applicants have been evading from giving details of the said transaction. 12. The ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has no application to the facts of the present case as the answers being given during investigation of the case, are on the face of it, totally evasive. 13. The change in the stance of the present applicants is apparent from the following chart: Grounds taken in Shashi Kant Gupta's Bail Application No. 3366/2022 filed on 10.11.2022 Grounds taken in Akshy Gupta's Bail Application No. 926/2023 filed on 20.03.2023 Ground B - "...that there were no direct or indirect allegations against the applicant in the instant FIR nor there was any business transactions of the applicant with M/s. Madhu Enterprises..." Ground B - "...that there were no direct or indirect allegations against the applicant in the instance FIR nor there was any fake business transactions of the applicant with M/s Madhu Enterprises. Therefore, the Impugned Order is contrary to the facts of the case..." Ground D - "...that the prosecution in its reply to the bail applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."
15. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary to unearth entire chain of transactions linked with M/s Madhu Enterprise at the behest of the present applicants and the entities in their control.
16. The present applications are accordingly dismissed at this stage and disposed of accordingly.
17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
18. The interim protection granted to Shashi Kant Gupta (applicant in BAIL APPLN. 3366/2022) vide order dated 14.11.2022 and Akshy Gupta (applicant in BAIL APPLN. 926/2023) vide order dated 21.03.2023, is withdrawn.
19. Needless to state, nothing stated hereinabove is an opinion on the merits of the case and is only for the purpose of the present applications.
20. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
