9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 of 2022 dated 04.06.2022, lodged at Bariatu police station, Ranchi Jharkhand under section 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, 1860, against Pradeep Bagchi on the basis of complaint of one Sri Dilip Sharma, Tax Collector, Ranchi Municipal Corporation for submission of forged papers i.e. Aadhar Card, Electricity Bill and Possession letter for obtaining holding number 0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5. Investigation revealed that by submitting the forged documents, a holding number was obtained in name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19, Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring 455.00 decimals approx. at Ranchi. Investigation further revealed that the above property belonged to Late B.M. Laxman Rao which was given to the Army and had been in the possession of the Defence, in occupation of the Army since independence. Investigation reveals that by way of creating a fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was sold to one company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for which the consideration amount was shown Rs. 7 crores which was highly under value and out of this amount Rs. 7 crores payment amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only were made into t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been committed. 5. Further submission has been made in the aforesaid view of the matter as per the ground agitated, it is a fit case where the petitioner is to be given the privilege of bail. Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent: 6. While on the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondent-Enforcement Directorate has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail by taking the following grounds: (i) The argument so far as it relates to non-availability of the condition as stipulated under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2002 has already expired the moment the petitioner has been remanded in custody by virtue of an order passed by the order of remand by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. (ii) The aforesaid order of remand has not been assailed at any time. (iii) Since the remand order is not under challenge, hence, it is not available for the petitioner to take the ground that the condition as stipulated under Section 19(1) of the Act is not available so as to come to the conclusion that there is absence of reason to believe about the complicity of the petitioner. (iv) It has been su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. The issues were debated threadbare in the United Nation Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Basle Statement of Principles enunciated in 1989, the FATF established at the summit of seven major industrial nations held in Paris from 14th to 16th July, 1989, the Political Declaration and Noble Programme of Action adopted by United Nations General Assembly vide its Resolution No. S-17/2 of 23.2.1990, the United Nations in the Special Session on countering World Drug Problem Together concluded on the 8th to the 10th June, 1998, urging the State parties to enact a comprehensive legislation. This is evident from the introduction and Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Bill which became the 2002 Act. The same reads thus: "INTRODUCTION Money-laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of countries, but also to their integrity and sovereignty. To obviate such threats international community has taken some initiatives. It has been felt that to prevent money-laundering and connected activities a comprehensive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent such laundering. (e) the United Nations in the Special Session on countering World Drug Problem Together concluded on the 8th to the 10th June, 1998 has made another declaration regarding the need to combat money- laundering. India is a signatory to this declaration. 9. It is thus evident that the Act 2002 was enacted in order to answer the urgent requirement to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. 10. It needs to refer herein the definition of "proceeds of crime" as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 which reads as under: "2(u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property 3[or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] 4[or abroad]; [Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule." 15. It is evident that the "scheduled offence" means the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule. 16. The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of the Act, 2002 which reads as under: "3. Offence of money-laundering.-Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or 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. [Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,- (i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if such person is found to have dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng commissions for examination of witnesses and documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed. (2) The Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary whether to give evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. (3) All the persons so summoned shall be bound to attend in person or through authorised agents, as such officer may direct, and shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements, and produce such documents as may be required. (4) Every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (5) Subject to any rules made in this behalf by the Central Government, any officer referred to in sub-section (2) may impound and retain in his custody for such period, as he thinks fit, any records produced before him in any proceedings under this Act: Provided that an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director shall not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of India and the enactments made by Parliament must necessarily be understood in the context of the present-day scenario and having regard to the international treaties and convention as our constitution takes note of the institutions of the world community which had been created. In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, the Court observed that domestic Courts are under an obligation to give due regard to the international conventions and norms for construing the domestic laws, more so, when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in domestic law. This view has been restated in Githa Hariharan, as also in People's Union for Civil Liberties, and National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India." 23. The implication of Section 50 has also been taken into consideration. Relevant paragraph, i.e., paragraphs-422, 424, 425, 431, 434 reads as under: "422. The validity of this provision has been challenged on the ground of being violative of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. For, it allows the authorised officer under the 2002 Act to summon any person and record his statement during the course of investigation. Further, the provision mand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) and (3) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. Even so, the fact remains that Article 20(3) or for that matter Section 25 of the Evidence Act, would come into play only when the person so summoned is an accused of any offence at the relevant time and is being compelled to be a witness against himself. This position is well-established. The Constitution Bench of this Court in M.P. Sharma had dealt with a similar challenge wherein warrants to obtain documents required for investigation were issued by the Magistrate being violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. This Court opined that the guarantee in Article 20(3) is against "testimonial compulsion" and is not limited to oral evidence. Not only that, it gets triggered if the person is compelled to be a witness against himself, which may not happen merely because of issuance of summons for giving oral evidence or producing documents. Further, to be a witness is nothing more than to furnish evidence and such evidence can be furnished by different modes. The Court went on to observe as follows: "Broadly stated the guarantee in article 20(3) is against "testimonial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issued by the Authority under Section 50 in connection with the inquiry regarding proceeds of crime which may have been attached and pending adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority. In respect of such action, the designated officials have been empowered to summon any person for collection of information and evidence to be presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is not necessarily for initiating a prosecution against the noticee as such. The power entrusted to the designated officials under this Act, though couched as investigation in real sense, is to undertake inquiry to ascertain relevant facts to facilitate initiation of or pursuing with an action regarding proceeds of crime, if the situation so warrants and for being presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is a different matter that the information and evidence so collated during the inquiry made, may disclose commission of offence of money-laundering and the involvement of the person, who has been summoned for making disclosures pursuant to the summons issued by the Authority. At this stage, there would be no formal document indicative of likelihood of involvement of such person as an accused of offenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This Act is also to compel the banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries to maintain records of the transactions, to furnish information of such transactions within the prescribed time in terms of Chapter IV of the 2002 Act. 25. The predicate offence has been considered in the aforesaid judgment wherein by taking into consideration the explanation as inserted by way of Act 23 of 2019 under the definition of the "proceeds of crime" as contained under Section 2(1)(u), whereby and whereunder, it has been clarified for the purpose of removal of doubts that, the "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence, meaning thereby, the words "any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence" will come under the fold of the proceeds of crime. 26. So far as the purport of Section 45(1)(i)(ii) is concerned, the aforesaid provision starts from the non-obstante clause that notwithstanding anyth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person who is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm, [or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees], may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs: Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by- (i) the Director; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government. [(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorised, by the Central Government by a general or special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.] (2) The li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een passed, is contextual. In this case, the Court was dealing with the efficacy of the repealing Act. While doing so, the Court had adverted to the repealing Act and made the stated observation in the context of lack of legislative power. In the process of reasoning, it did advert to the exposition in Behram Khurshid Pesikaka and Deep Chand including American jurisprudence expounded in Cooley on Constitutional Limitations and Norton v. Shelby County." 28. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra), it has been laid down that since the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory, they need to be complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further been observed that as per the statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of "proceeds of crime". Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process. 31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at paragraph -30 that the conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA. Section 65 requires that the provisions of CrPC shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions specified under Section 45 are mandatory. They need to be complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is needless to say that as per the statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in view of the overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, under Section 71 of the PML Act. 18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Satender Kumar Antil case [Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 153] , SCC pp. 774-76, paras 2-11) "2. We have been provided assistance both by Mr S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and there is broad unanimity in terms of the suggestions made by the learned ASG. In terms of the suggestions, the offences have been categorised and guidelines are sought to be laid down for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and keeping in mind the statutory provisions. 3. We are inclined to accept the guidelines and make them a part of the order of the Court for the benefit of the courts below. The guidelines are as under: 'Categories/Types of Offences (A) Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in Categories B & D. (B) Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years. (C) Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (Section 37), PMLA (Section 45), UAPA [Section 43-D(5)], Companies Act, [Section 212(6)], etc. (D) Economic offences not covered b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t-quoted phrase - 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act. The 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. The form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D (5)- 'shall not be released' in contrast with the form of the words as found in Section 437(1) CrPC - 'may be released' - suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule." 35. The reason for making reference of this judgment is that in the Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr (supra)'s judgment, the UAPA has also been brought under the purview of category 'c' wherein while laying observing that in the UAPA Act, it comes under the category 'c' which also includes money laundering offence wherein the bail has been directed to be granted if the investigation is complete but the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (supra) has taken the view by making note that the penal offences as enshrined under the provision of UAPA are also under category 'c' making reference that jail is the ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making reference of these judgments even though the petitioner has not argued and that is not the case of the petitioner, i.e., there is no communication of communicating the reason of arrest. It is corroborative from the fact that the petitioner, after arrest under Section 19(1) has been remanded but the said order of remanded has not been assailed before any forum which suggest that the petitioner is having no grievance so far as the alleged non-compliance of the provision of Section 19(1) of the Act, 2002 is concerned. 41. So far as the reason to believe as provided under Section 19(1) or the twin condition as available under Section 45 of the Act is concerned, this Court in order to come to the conclusion as to whether the condition stipulated in these sections have been followed or not, is required to consider the statement of the present petitioner which is mentioned at para-8.10 of the complaint submitted by the Enforcement Directorate. For ready reference, the same is being reproduced as under: "8.10 Amit Kumar Agarwal (Accused no. 3) - * In his statement dated 07.06.2023 given under section 50 of PMLA (RUD No. 74) he was confronted with the cash deposits into the acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emoved him. From the above statements of Amit Kumar Agarwal and Dilip Kumar Ghosh it is evident that Dilip Kumar Ghosh is one of the associate and a trusted confident of Amit Kumar Agarwal, who assisted him in his activities linked to money laundering." 42. It is evident from the prosecution complain dated 12.06.2023 that the petitioner was actually a party with other accused persons of the case in the activities connected with the acquisition of proceeds of crime amounting to Rs of 20,75,84,200 in form of landed property measuring 4.55 acres (455 decimals) at MS Plot no. 557, Mauja Morabadi whose present market vaule is Rs 41,51,68,390/- (as per the revised rates effective from 01.08.2021). 43. The present petitioner acquired the said property in the name of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd represent by his employee and a close confidant Dilip Kumar Ghosh who acted as an authorised person in the property deed No 6888 dated 01.10.2021 between Pradeep Bagchi and Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. 44. It is further evident that during the period 16.10.2020 to 25.07.2022, an amount of Rs. 4,69,80,000 was deposited Into IDFC First Bank account no. 10060532973 of Jagatbandhu Tea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [email protected] and that of Mrs. Sutapa Ghosh is [email protected]. In the MCA data email address of Sanayukt Vanijya Pvt. Ltd (Corporate Identification Number (CIN)074999WB2012PTC175051) has been given as [email protected]. 50. Thus, it is evident that the email ids of Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. (a company which is owned by Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and Amar Kumar Agarwal, (brothers of Amit Kumar Agarwal) and SanayuktVanijyaPvt. Ltd has been used in the KYC of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. which leads to the conclusion that M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Itd. is a company which is solely under the control of Amit Kumar Agarwal. 51. It is, thus, evident on the basis of the aforesaid material collected that there is reason to believe of commission of offence said to be committed under the provisions of the Act, 2002. 52. Now coming to the ground of parity. Law the well settled that the principle of parity is to be applied if the case of the fact is exactly to be similar then only the principle of parity in the matter of passing order is to be passed but if there is difference in between the facts then the principle of parity is not to be applied. 53. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to refer herein the following paragraphs so as to come to the conclusion that whether the accountability of Dilip Kumar Ghosh in commission of predicate offence attracting the ingredient of Section 3 of the Act, 2002 is at par with the case of Amit Agarwal, the petitioner herein. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE OFFENCE/ ALLEGATION/ CHARGE/ AMOUNT INVOLVED UNDER PMLA 3.3 Investigation revealed that the above-stated two holding Nos. 0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A were obtained for property - plot no. MS 557, Morabadi Mouza, ward no. 21/19, having an area of 455.00 decimals at Ranchi. It also revealed that the above-stated property was later Sold by the said Pradeep Bagchi (Aadhaar no. 511337882315, PAN (AMBPB1317J) to one company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd (PAN AABCJ3705F, represented by its Director Dilip Kumar Ghosh having Aadhaar no. 912605787465) and it is registered at the office of the SRO Ranchi, bearing deed No 6888, Vol No 919, Page No 525-576, year 2021. From the sale deed of this property registered on 01.10.2021 (RUD No. 7)., it is seen that the declared government value/Market value of the said property is Rs 20,75,84,200/whereas the said property has been sold fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f payment of the full amount of Rs 7 (seven) crores by the purchaser and its receipt by the seller is deliberate, thoughtful and planned to give a legitimate appearance to the bogus transactions recorded in the sale deed for acquiring the above said property. 3.5 Investigation conducted into this case has also revealed that the above stated property situated at MS 557, Morabadi Mouza, ward no. 21/19, having an area of 455.00 decimals at Ranchi has been under the possession and occupation of Defence before independence. As per the documents provided by the defence, it is revealed that defence had been paying a monthly rent to one Jayant Karnad, a purported descendant/claimant of B.M Lakshman Rao and his son B.M Mukund Rao. The documents and records collected states that B.M Lakshman Rao died in the year 1946 and B.M. Mukund Rao passed away in the year 1998. Jayant Karnad started receiving rent from the defence as a claimant of the property after B.M Mukund Rao in the year 2008. In the year 2019, Jayant Karnad further sold this property to the following 14 persons by way of 16 deeds at a very negligible amount. Initially Jayant Karnad frivolously managed to get the rent from the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt. Ltd. Both persons namely Amit Kumar Agarwal and Prem Prakash weré aware that the owner Pradip Bagchi was a fake person and the deed was false which is evident from the fact that they acquired property worth several crores of rupees by paying only Rs 25 lakhs (which was, in fact, a commission). Instead, Amit Kumar Agarwal, the beneficial owner of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. knowingly acquired the abovesaid property in the name of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Chhavi Ranjan, then DC of Ranchi assisted these persons to acquire the above property by misusing his official position and overlooking the records available in his office/subordinate offices. Mr. Chhavi Ranjan had knowledge that the abovesaid property is disputed as one dispute between Defence and Jayant Karnad was aiso pending before his disposal i.e. in the court of the District Magistrate, Ranchi which he used to preside during his tenure. Yet on receipt of the application of Pradeep Bagchi, who falsely claimed himself to be the rightful owner of the property, the then Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Chhavi Ranjan assisted Prem Prakash, Amit Kumar Agarwal, Afsar Ali, Saddam Hussain and others verbally di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad no employees at his Salt Lake office where he sits with Amit Kumar Agarwal. * In his statement dated 09.06.2023 (RUD No. 80) recorded in Judicial Custody, under section 50 of PMLA, 2002 it reveals that he had been directors of several companies of Amit Kumar Agarwal and he had obtained the directorship of those companies on the directions of Amit Kumar Agarwal. He further stated that Amit Kumar Agarwal used to take the decisions regarding those companies. He further stated that he only knows that Rajesh Auto Merchandise is company of Amit Kumar Agarwal and he does not remember whether he was director of this company or not. He also did not remember about his directorship in other companies of Amit Kumar Agarwal. From the above statement it reveals that he is one of the associates working under Amit Kumar Agarwal and follows his instructions without even applying his mind and as such he is not aware of the companies of Amit Kumar Agarwal in which he has remained one of the directors. * In his statement dated 10.06.2023 (RUD No. 81) he was confronted with the records showing his directorship in companies of Amit Kumar Agarwal and he accepted the same. Further he was also confr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the record it is evident that property in question was sold in the name of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner is the beneficial owner of the said company. "Beneficial owner" has been defined as under Section 2(fa) of the Act, 2002 which means an individual who ultimately owns or controls a client of a reporting entity or the person on whose behalf a transaction is being conducted and includes a person who exercises ultimate effective control over a juridical person. Taking into consideration the aforesaid definition of the "beneficial owner" and applying the same into the facts of the present case, it is amply clear that the present petitioner has full control over the said company and Dilip Kumar Ghosh is merely a director of the said company and the close associate of the present petitioner. (ii) Further, it is evident from the statement of Dilip Kumar Ghosh that the work of said company was done by the employees of Amit Kumar Agarwal and the salaries, P. F and E.SI of those employees are also paid by Amit Kumar Agarwal. (iii) It is also evident from the statement of Dilip Kumar Ghosh that he had been directors of several companies of Amit Kumar Agar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
