9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Chartered Accountants. There would be no justification for the petitioner for pre-trial incarceration and custodial interrogation subject to the condition that the petitioner shall fully cooperate for recovery of Rs. 30,000/-. Petitioner is directed to cooperate in the investigation for recovery of Rs. 30,000/- within 15 days. On failure to do so, the concerned Superintendent of Police shall apply for cancellation of bail, and bail would be cancelled on this ground alone. It is further clarified that the above observations are only to decide the present bail petition and for no other purpose. Petition allowed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: For the Petitioner : Mr. Manmeet Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab. For the Complainant : Mr. Arpan Sabharwal, Advocate. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail by filing the present petition. 2. Vide order dated 15.01.2024, the petitioner was granted interim protection, which is continuing till date. 3. Fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Enforcement Directorate official, Ravinder Kumar replied in affirmative and asked complainant to meet him. The complainant further questioned Ravinder Kumar, whether he should meet him in the office of the ED, upon which Ravinder Kumar told that he would inform in the evening. Then complainant again talked to co-accused Rajbir on WhatsApp and said Rajbir told that he will arrange the meeting of the complainant with Ravinder Kumar of ED department. On 01.03.2022, Rajbir arranged a meeting of complainant with Enforcement Directorate official Ravinder Kumar outside the office of accused Ravinder Kumar, near Heat Seven Restaurant, Jalandhar. Ravinder Kumar told the complainant that he had received one complaint in ED office made by Gagandeep Singh and in case, a case is registered under the FEMA act, then the carrier of complainant's company would come to an end asked him to approach his CA in this regard. Then, petitioner Parambir Singh, CA suggested complainant to engage services of some CA, who deals in ED cases. Though, there was no complaint pending with the ED against the complainant, still by blackmailing the complainant, all the accused got entered a settlement with G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt. When EBTL calculated their expenses, the expenses came out to be more than 12,500 USD, as EBTL was almost at the verge of completion of the project. The Complainant shared the expenses with G M automation which were around 19,000 USD. This discussion got closed here at the end of 2020. 2. Thereafter, in 2022 Feb, co-accused Rajbir Singh (Complainant's co-founder) called him up and mentioned that Gagandeep Singh has filed a complaint in ED (Enforcement Directorate). Rajbir Singh also made the Complainant meet an ED Officer Ravinder Kumar (Co-accused) on 1st March 2022. Ravinder Kumar told the Complainant and Rajbir Singh to talk to some CA to get this matter sorted. At that time CA of EBTL was CA Paramvir Singh (Petitioner), who happens to be Rajbir Singh's cousin. The Complainant and Rajbir Singh spoke to the Petitioner and the Petitioner mentioned that they need to get in touch with someone who is an expert in managing cases of ED. The Petitioner introduced CA Arshdeep Singh (Co-accused) over call and then CA Paramvir Singh and Rajbir Singh took the Complainant to meet CA Arshdeep Singh in Amritsar. CA Arshdeep Singh assured that he knows ED Officer Ravinder Kum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evention of Corruption Act have been invoked in the present case as one of the co-accused namely Ravinder Kumar is working as a Superintendent Chief Commissioner, Chennai of GST and Central Excise and was instrumental in extorting money from the Complainant by conniving with the other co-accused. 5. The petitioner, Paramvir Singh, had introduced Chartered Accountant Arshdeep Singh, accompanied Rajbir Singh, and participated in the meeting with CA Arshdeep Singh, which had taken place in Amritsar. In the said meeting, Chartered Accountant Arshdeep Singh assured the complainant that he has good connections with an Enforcement Directorate officer, Ravinder Kumar, and he would be able to handle this case through his intervention. After that, Arshdeep Singh called the complainant and demanded Rs. 4 lacs from the Enforcement Directorate. Rajbir Singh had also called the complainant to pay Rs. 6,50,000/- to Deepinder Singh (brother of Gagandeep Singh) and Rs. One lac for Arshdeep Singh, and Rs. 30,000/- is for the petitioner, Paramvir Singh. The petitioner s stand is that Rs. 30,000/- was paid as a professional fee; however, counsel for the complainant disputes the same and submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unately, some professions in our country have become highly unethical, and the practitioners accept cuts for referring the work instead of referring the matters on a reciprocal basis or ethical or professional grounds. Although with a heavy heart, this Court cannot ignore the existence of such unethical practices, which are widely prevalent in many professions, including some of the unethical Chartered Accountants. 10. Given the above, there would be no justification for the petitioner for pre-trial incarceration and custodial interrogation subject to the condition that the petitioner shall fully cooperate for recovery of Rs. 30,000/-. Petitioner is directed to cooperate in the investigation for recovery of Rs. 30,000/- within 15 days. On failure to do so, the concerned Superintendent of Police shall apply for cancellation of bail, and bail would be cancelled on this ground alone. It is further clarified that the above observations are only to decide the present bail petition and for no other purpose. This order shall not be cited as parity by other accused whose cases are on a higher footing. 11. Petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation and interim order dated 15.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
