9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any statutory basis leaving the petitioners clueless as to by reference to which culpable statement of facts they have been booked in the company of nineteen (19) other accused persons with whom they have no privity of transaction. With reference to recovery of movable properties during search and seizure conducted under Section 17 of the Act of 2002, the reference with respect to the petitioner No. 2 is in para 9.2 wherein gold jewellery weighing 1765 gms is said to be recovered from the residential house of the petitioner No. 2 and seven (07) arms licences in original were found and seized during search thereby relating it to the petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 2 is alleged to have directly indulged in criminal activities related to scheduled offences under Section 2(1) (x) 2(1) (y) of the Act of 2002 and committed the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act of 2002 punishable under Section 4 of the Act of 2002. Prima facie case made out particularly in the manner the court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption (CBI Cases) Jammu has, in a very cryptic order of one and half page, has come to take cognizance of the complaint against the petitioners figuring in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e institution of the complaint ante-dated to be 06.09.2023 when it was first presented to the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu but not to the Special Judge Anti-Corruption (CBI Cases), Jammu. 6. The complaint by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) is under Section 44 45 of the Act of 2002 for commission of offence under Section 3 read with Section 70 and punishable under Section 4 of the Act of 2002. In the complaint, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has named and booked twenty one (21) accused persons/concerns. The petitioner No. 1 is accused No. 21 whereas the petitioner No. 2-Madan Mohan Bhargav is accused No. 10. The petitioners are aggrieved of their booking by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) for alleged commission of offences under Section under Section 3 read with Section 70 and punishable under Section 4 of the Act of 2002 read with order dated 12.02.2024 whereby the court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption (CBI cases) Jammu has come to take cognizance of the complaint and directed issuance of process against the accused so named in the complaint. 7. The petitioners are, therefore, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court vested in terms of Section 482 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18.05.2018 registered by the Vigilance Organization Kashmir (VOK). 12. Both the aforementioned FIRs No. 11 of 2018 and 18 of 2018 were for alleged commission of offences under Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt 2006 read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 on the subject matter of bulk issuances of gun licences by the then posted District Magistrates of the districts in particular of the district Kupwara and district Udhampur, in connivance with the subordinate officials of the time and the private persons. 13. After a while, both the aforesaid FIRs came to be transferred for investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Special Crime Branch, Chandigarh (in short, CBI Chandigarh ) by virtue of SRO 338 dated 08.08.2018 issued by the then Govt. of State of Jammu and Kashmir. 14. Pursuant to the said SRO 338 dated 08.08.2018 granting the consent by the Govt. of State of Jammu and Kashmir for investigation of the said two FIRs by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), a notification No. 228/41/2018-AVD-II dated 05.10.2018 under Section 5(1) of Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946 came to be issued by Ministry of Pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... District Magistrates, Additional District Magistrates of District Doda and the judicial clerks of District Magistrate Office, Doda and other private persons for alleged commission of offences under Section 120-B/420 of RPC read with Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006. 22. In the aforesaid five final police reports/chargesheets so submitted by CBI, Chandigarh, following is the list of the accused persons: S. No. Name of the Accused With effect from 1. Farooq Ahmad Khan, District Magistrate, Doda 01.06.2010 to 24.04.2013. 2. Late Shyam Vinod Meena, District Magistrate, Doda 19.07.2014 to 23.01.2015. 3. Mohammad Mukhtyar Zargar, Judicial Clerk, District Magistrate, Doda 01.01.2012 to 28.12.2013. 4. Sajid Iqbal Zargar, Judicial Clerk, District Magistrate Doda 28.12.2013 to 19.01.2015. 5. Surjeet Singh, Arms and Ammunition Dealer and the Proprietor of M/s Dashmesh Armoury 6. Pramod Kumar Sharma of M/s Nav Durga Gun House. 7. Vijay Kumar Khajuria, Proprietor of M/s Khajuria Gun House. 8. Sushil Kumar, Delhi Police Constable and Ex. Army Personnel. 9. Late Yudhvir Pathania, owner of M/s Sainik Gun House. 10. Satyendra Singh, ex-serviceman o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh Bhagav and sons Accused No. 21. 26. The complaint, which is comprised of 280 pages, comes out with paragraph wise references. Paragraph 1 is related to FIR No./Complaint No. or Police Report u/s 173(2) of Cr.P.C/Nature of scheduled offences and place/court where it is being tried. Paragraph 2 is related to Brief summary of cause of action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002. Paragraph 3 is related to Brief facts of the offence/allegation/charge/amount involved under PMLA. Paragraph 4 is related to Searches and surveys conducted during the course of investigation. Paragraph 5 is related to Properties and documents sought for retention under Section 8(3) of the PMLA respectively. Paragraph 6 is related to Details of Proceeds of Crime attached. Paragraph 7 is related to Brief detail of summons and persons examined under Section 50(2) and (3) of PMLA along with opportunities allowed to accused/co-accused to discharge burden of proof as stipulated under Section 24 of PMLA. Paragraph 8 is related to Brief summary of result of investigation under PMLA. Paragraph 9 is related to Brief summary of evidence to prove that accused and properties are involved in money launde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal arms licences were also seized. 31. Next reference to the petitioners is under paragraph Brief detail of summons and persons examined under Section 50(2) and (3) of PMLA along with opportunities allowed to accused/co-accused to discharge burden of proof as stipulated under Section 24 of PMLA. In this connection, the statement of the petitioner No. 2-Madan Mohan Bhargav was recorded on 27.07.2022 and 13.09.2022. 32. Under paragraph 8 Brief summary of result of investigation under PMLA , the petitioner No. 2 is referred at para 8.13 in which the petitioner No. 2 s statement is reflected made under Section 50 of the PMLA on 27.07.2022 and 13.09.2022 which has nothing inculpatory in it. 33. With respect to petitioner No. 1-M/s Madan Bhargav and Sons, reference is under paragraph 8.23 which also bears no inculpatory content. Namrata Bhargav wife of the petitioner No. 2 is a related person is in para 8.25 which also carries no inculpatory content. 34. Petitioner No. 2 is referred under Paragraph 8.41 in terms of statement of accused persons related under Section 17 of PMLA, during search conducted on 24.03.2022 in which there is nothing inculpatory in terms of contents therein. 35. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es through petitioner No. 2 and his firm are said to have integrated into the movable and immovable properties held by petitioner No. 2 in his name and name of his families. 38. The petitioner No. 2 is thus alleged to have directly indulged in criminal activities related to scheduled offences under Section 2(1) (x) 2(1) (y) of the Act of 2002 and committed the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act of 2002 punishable under Section 4 of the Act of 2002. 39. With reference to petitioner No. 1 it is by reference to the same set of averments related to petitioner No. 2 that the implication of petitioner No. 1 is referred under section 11.20 at page 269 of the complaint. 40. By drawing heavy reference and reliance from the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors Vs. Union of India and ors reported in 2022 (10) Scale 577 and of Delhi High Court in case of Prakash Industries Ltd Vs. Union of India and ors and Prakash Thermal Power Ltd vs. Union of India reported in 2023 DHC 481, the learned counsel for the petitioners assail their very naming as accused persons in the complaint when the petitioners do not figure, by any stretc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
