9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, 1098/2024 and 1186/2024}, Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kajal Chandra, Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner {CrMP No. 936/2024, 959/2024 and 1807/2024}, Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshul Aggarwal, Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Mr. Robin Arya Lall, {Cr.M.P. No. 964/2024}, Mr. Aman Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner {CrMP No. 1286/2024, 1287/2024, 1288/2024, 1444/2024} and Mr. Shobhit Koshta {CrMP No. 1467/2024} For the Respondent/UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General. For the Respondent/State of Chhattisgarh : Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent/Enforcement Directorate : Mr. Zoheb Hossain (through Video Conferencing) and Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande and learned Special Public Prosecutor C.A.V. JUDGMENT PER RAMESH SINHA, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. Since common and inter-related facts and issues are involved in this batch of petitions, they are being considered and decided by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners, in Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024 have prayed for the following reliefs: "1. This Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, in Cr.M.P. No. 936/2024 has prayed for the following reliefs: "1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Impugned FIR bearing No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the ACB, Chhattisgarh against the petitioner for offence punishable u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 7 & 12 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and if any proceeding initiated therefrom. 2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Letter dated 11.07.2023 sent by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent No. 4 (which forms a part of the Impugned FIR) in complete violation of the Order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and all consequential actions/proceedings emanating therefrom. 3. To kindly call for the entire records and details of the sanction given by the appropriate authority under Sec. 17A PC Act taken by the ACB, Raipur and the preliminary inquiry conducted by Anti- Corruption Bureau, Raipur in relation to the Impugned FIR bearing No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the ACB, Raipur, 4. That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioners." 5. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to grant in favor of the Petitioner." 7. The petitioner, in Cr.M.P. No. 1098/2024 has prayed for the following reliefs: "1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the arrest of the Petitioner as illegal and in gross violation of Section 19 of PMLA and the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India in relation to ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 registered by the Respondent Agency and quash the arrest and direct that the Petitioner to be released: 2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the Order dated 21.04.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District and Sessions Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh granting 1 days of judicial custody remand of the Petitioner from 21.04.2024 till 22.04.2024 in relation to ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 registered by the Respondent Agency; 3. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the Order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Raipur District, Chhattisgarh granting 2 days of judicial custody remand of the Petitioner from 22.04.2024 till 24.04.2024 in relation to ECIR/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 4 in complete violation of the Order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and all consequential actions/proceedings emanating therefrom. 3. To kindly call for the entire records of the preliminary inquiry conducted by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur in relation to the Impugned FIR bearing No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the ACB, Raipur. 4. That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioners." 11. The petitioner, in Cr.M.P. No. 1444/2024 has prayed for the following reliefs: "1. Quash the investigation and all proceedings emanating from and in relation to ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 registered by the Respondent ED; 2. Direct that the act of the registration of ECIR/RPZO/ 04/2024 is illegal and consequently quash ECIR/ RPZO/04/2024; 3. Stay the effect and operation of all investigation and proceedings arising from ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 registered by the ED; 4. Protect the Petitioner from any coercive action in relation to investigation and proceedings arising from ECIR/ RPZO/04/2024 registered by the ED; 5. Grant any other relief (s) which the Hon'ble Court deems ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese petitions can be segregated into two groups, firstly, relating to the FIR registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau (for short, the ACB), Raipur, being Crime No. 4/2024 dated 17.01.2024 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC), Section 7 and 12 of the Anti Corruption Act, 1988 Amended Act 2018, {which includes Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024, 860/2024, 936/2024, 959/2024, 964/2024, 1286/2024, 1288/2024}, and secondly, the Enforcement Case Information Report being No. ECIR/ RPZO/04/2024, registered by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate {for short, the ED} {which includes Cr.M.P. No. 1098/2024, 1186/2024, 1444/2024, 1467/2024, 1287/2024 and 1807/2024.}. 16. The petitioner-Anil Tuteja {in Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024 and 1098/2024} is retired officer of Indian Administrative Services. He retired as Joint Secretary in the Department of Commerce and Industry, Government of Chhattisgarh, in the month of May 2023. Petitioner No. 2-Yash Tuteja {in Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024} is the son of Anil Tuteja and is a businessman. Petitioner-Anwar Dhebar {in Cr.M.P. No. 860/2024 and 1186/2024} is a businessman and resides at Raipur. Petitioner Arun Pati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Year 2020-2021 alleging an illegal liquor syndicate in the State of Chhattisgarh. 18. Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024 is taken as the lead case for the first batch of petitions. The facts projected by the petitioner-Anil Tuteja, is that for a brief period of 8 months, he was posted as the Managing Director of the State Civil Services Corporation/Nagrik Apoorti Nigam (for short, NAN), a State-owned Corporation. On 09.05.2015, despite the fact that he was not named in the NAN FIR, sanction to prosecute him was sought by the ACB. On 05.12.2018, the ACB filed a supplementary charge-sheet in the NAN FIR arraigning inter alia Anil Tuteja as an accused. The charge-sheet was filed a week before the 2018 State Assembly election results for the State of Chhattisgarh were to be declared, and after the passage of a period of over 3 years since the sanction to prosecute Anil Tuteja was granted. On 07.01.2019, with the change of ruling dispensation in the State of Chhattisgarh in December, 2018, SIT was formed to conduct an impartial investigation into the alleged NAN scam. The respondent-Enforcement Directorate, on 09.01.2019 registered an ECIR bearing ECIR/RPZO/01/2019 ("NAN ECIR") merely 2 days afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the IT Act read with Section 120-B, 199, 200 and 204 IPC and erroneously took cognizance under Sections 277 of the IT Act and 191 IPC against the petitioners. The ITD was directed to file separate complaints qua each accused against whom cognizance was taken. No cognizance of Section 120-B of the IPC was taken by the learned ACMM. 19. On 08.04.2023, the petitioners-Anil Tuteja and Yash Tuteja filed W.P. (Crl.) No. 153/2023 titled before the Supreme Court seeking inter alia quashing of the summons issued to the petitioners in relation to ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. Through subsequent applications, quashing of the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, the prosecution complaint in the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 and all proceedings emanating therefrom were also sought and on 17.04.2023, the order dated 06.04.2023 was challenged by Anil Tuteja before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, to the extent the learned ACMM took cognizance of alleged offences under Sections 277 of the IT Act and Section 191 IPC in Crl. Rev. Pet. 224/2023. The learned ASJ, Tees Hazari, stayed the order dated 06.04.2023 to the extent prayed for. Thereafter, sometimes in in April, 2023, the ITD also challenged the order dated 06.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 023, on 21.07.2023, the ED caused the ITD to act as its proxy and file an application bearing Crl. MA No. 19314/2023 before the Delhi High Court in Crl. MC No. 2757/2023 seeking a complete stay of the order dated 06.04.2023. The act of causing the ITD to file Crl. MA No. 19314/2023 was a clear act of contempt of the order dated 18.07.2023 on part of the respondent-ED. Thereafter, on 28.07.2023, in violation and contempt of the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Supreme Court in WP (Crl.) No. 153/2023, by misusing Section 66 of PMLA, the officers of the respondent-ED wrote another letter to the Uttar Pradesh Police, illegally seeking registration of an FIR inter alia against Anil Tuteja in relation to the same alleged transaction that it sought to register an FIR with the respondent-ACB. This was done with the sole purpose of establishing jurisdiction for itself to circumvent the order dated 18.07.2023. This act of the officers of respondent-ED was an act of outright contempt of the order dated 18.07.2023 of the Supreme Court. All acts undertaken by the respondents pursuant thereto are an extension of this contemptuous act and are a nullity in law. On 30.07.2023, an FIR bearing No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation to the UP FIR in light of the own admission of respondent-ED that the information on the basis of which the letter dated 28.07.2023 was sent to the UP Police, was available with the respondent-ED prior to the order dated 18.07.2023 staying its hands in all manner. The petitioner-Yash Tuteja was summoned on 25.08.2023 by the respondent-ACB for appearance on 28.08.2023 which was duly complied by him. The petitioner-Anil Tuteja was again summoned on 14.11.2023 by the respondent-ACB to appear before it on 28.11.2023 which was also complied with by him. 23. On 30.11.2023, a final report of the Departmental Enquiry (for short, DE) conducted by the Commercial Tax (Excise Department), State of Chhattisgarh is prepared. No irregularity in the manner in which liquor trade has taken place in the State of Chhattisgarh has been found in the DE with a categorical finding that inter alia the sale of liquor has taken place in complete adherence of law. The DE has also concluded that the respondent-ED had coerced individuals to record false statements under Section 50 of the PMLA according to their own whims and fancies. On 22.12.2023, the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent-ED h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Minister of the State of Chhattisgarh responding to allegations made by the Respondents-ED and ACB in relation to the alleged liquor scam. On 23.02.2024, the petitioner-Anil Tuteja addresses another letter to the DG, ACB, Raipur, inter alia reiterating the legal infirmities of the impugned FIR and highlighted the legal requirement of a valid sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act in order to initiate investigation against Anil Tuteja in relation to the impugned FIR. On 25.02.2024, while the WP (Crl.) No. 153/2023 along with the Application No. 26027/2024 (Application by which the petitioners had sought protection in the Chhattisgarh FIR) was pending before the Supreme Court, the respondent-ACB conducted search and seizure proceedings on the premises of the petitioners on 25.02.2024. On 26.02.2024, an Application bearing No. 49667/2024 preferred by Petitioner No. 1 in SLP Crl. No. 6323/2020 bringing to light the various legal infirmities and defects in the manner in which the raids were conducted and data extracted by the Income Tax Department along with the letter dated 22.12.2023 addressed by Anil Tuteja to respondent-ED. The Supreme Court, on 18.03.2024 was pleased to categori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Bench of the Supreme Court has settled the law relating to registration of FIR. On going through the said judgment, it is clear the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. The Constitution Bench has also held that the Police Officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence disclosed. The Court has further held that if information given clearly mentions the commission of cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register a FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible, etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is, merely whether the information given ex-facie discloses the commission of the cognizable offence. If after investigation the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petition, petitioners have made pleading regarding the illegal registration of ECIR and the proceeding pending before the Supreme Court and the various orders passed by the Supreme Court. The factual position now is that the Supreme Court has allowed WPCr. No. 153/2023 filed by the petitioners vide order dated 08.04.2024 and has quashed the ECIR. The said ECIR has been quashed on the ground that there is no predicate offence for registration of the ECIR. The complaint of the IT Department was bereft of any scheduled offence on the basis of which ED can registered the ECIR. On this limited premise, the ECIR has been quashed. During the pendency of WPCr. No. 153/2023, petitioner filed an I.A. in said writ petition and prayed for the staying the effect and operation/further investigation in the present FIR registered by the ACB which was not entertained by the Supreme Court. The petitioners have also filed a WPCr. No. 141/2024 raising the similar grounds as has been raised in the present petition for quashing of FIR of impugned FIR vide order dated 19.03.2024, the Supreme Court has declined to entertain the petition of the petitioner. 30. In present petition, the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Acts 420, 468, 471, 473, 484, 120-B, Penal Code 420, 468, 471, 473, 484, 120-B, Penal Code and 7 & 12, Prevention of Corruption Act. IV Complainant Shri Hemant, Dy. Director Enforcement Directorate Shri Hemant, Dy. Director Enforcement Directorate V. No. of Accused 05 70 VI. Details/of Names Accused 1. Sh. Arunpati Tripathi ITS, Special Secretary Excise 1.Sh. Anil Tuteja,thenj oint Secretary, Commerce and Industry, Chhattisgarh 2. Sh. Niranjan Das, E, IAS, Excise Commissioner 2. Sh. Anwar Dhebar 3.Sh. Anil Tuteja, IAS 3.Sh. Arunpati Tripathi, Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited 4. Mr. Vidhu Gupta, Managing Director, M/s. Prizm Holography, Security Films Pvt. Ltd., Kasna, Greater Noida 4. M/s Ratnapriya Media Pvt. Ltd. 5. Mr. Anwar Dhebar 6. Sh. Niranjan Das, IAS 35. Sh. Yash Tuteja 55. Sh. Vidhu Gupta, Prism Holography and Secrurties Pvt. Ltd. 59. M/s A Dhebar Buildcon 61. Owners of Sapphire Ispat, Mr. Junaid Dhebar 62. Shri Akhtar Dhebar VII. Offence Illegal award of tendar to M/s Prizm Holography Security Films for manufacturing hologram for supply to Excise Department of Chhattisgarh Criminal syndica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ogram alongwith other method was a modus operandi, (c) payment of annual commission by distillers for operation of cartel, which are not within the scope of investigation of UP FIR. From the above submission, it is clear that the case of the ACB is different from the FIR registered at UP and there is no illegality in the same. 34. The further contention of the petitioners that before registration of FIR the same IO has conducted a preliminary enquiry and by suppressing the said fact, he has registered the impugned FIR, is incorrect. After receiving the information from the ED, the Superintendent of Police marked that information to one DSP Farhan Qureshi only for preliminary verification of the complaint. It is categorically submitted that no preliminary enquiry was registered by the EOW and upon the verification of the complaint, a cognizable offence punishable under various provision of IPC and PC Act were made out, therefore, impugned FIR has been registered. At the time of registration of FIR, the IO is not required to see the falsity correctness, truthfulness of the information. It is enough if the Police Officer on the basis of information given suspects the commission of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initial stage and the entry made in the case diary and the communication made with the various Departments are confidential in nature and the accused person are not entitled to look into the entry made in the case diary/evidence collected during the investigation. The allegation of the petitioners that the impugned FIR is result of the malafide is not tenable. No. malafide is alleged against the ACB. All the allegation in the petition is against the ED. It is settled law that the malafide is required to be pleaded specifically and the person against whom the malafide is pleaded is required to be impleaded as party in the proceeding. In the instant petition, there is no pleading of malafide against any Officer of the ACB/EOW or any Officer of the State Government. Therefore, the instant FIR cannot be quashed on this ground. The instant case is an exceptional case of corruption and the Supreme Court has settled in various pronouncement that to maintain the probity in the system of governance as well as to ensure that societal pollutants are weeded out at the earliest, it would be eminently desirable if the High Court maintain a hands-off approach and not quash a first information rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation; it would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based of hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. In the present case investigation has just started. The allegation in the FIR is very serious in nature. The alleged offence committed by the petitioners is an offence against the society and to maintain balance between right of accused vis-a-vis right of people of State, it is desirable that investigation may go on to reveal the entire scam and to uphold the rule of law. The impugned criminal proceeding initiated by the Police authority is properly directed and is based on sound reasons, therefore there is no illegality of infirmity on the part of answering respondent, thus the instant petition filed by the petitioner is baseless and divide of merits, thus deserved to be dismissed as threshold. 38. The petitioner has failed to show any good cause in this petition for seeking indulgence of this Court and the petition is not of such nature where this Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring No. RPZO/11/2022. On the basis of all of the above documents and records, it gets established that a well-planned systematic conspiracy was executed by the syndicate to earn illegal commission in the sale and licensing of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh. The obligation to send information under section 66(2) disclosing commission of an offence to a law enforcement agency while inquiring into the offence of money laundering has been very well recognized in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) {paragraphs 282 and 290}. In light of the above facts and circumstances, the argument that the FIR deserves to be quashed on the basis of quashing of the erstwhile complaint in the earlier ECIR is wholly bereft of any merit. Additionally, this Court will also consider the fact that criminal law can be put into motion by any person {(as held in A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 para 6} . Therefore, if criminal law can be put into motion by any person, it is irrelevant if the material that has been used to set it into motion, whether it is from a legal source or not, without prejudice to my first contention that the material collected under the first ECIR is legal. 40. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MCL, and other associates of Anwar Dhebar namely Vikas Agarwal @ Subbu, Arvind Singh, Sanjay Diwan and Country Liquor Distillers, Excise Officials etc. were the main actors of this syndicate. The syndicate collected illegal money in the following different ways from the sale of liquor in Chhattisgarh which for record keeping was broadly classified by the syndicate itself into 3 parts: 1. PART-A: Illegal commission charged from the Liquor suppliers on the accounted sale of liquor in Chhattisgarh. II. PART-B: Sale of off-the-record unaccounted country liquor (popular in Chhattisgarh) from State run shops. This was done with the active involvement of distillers, Hologram manufacturer, Bottle maker, transporter, man- power management, district excise officials. PART-C: Annual commission paid to allow distillers to operate in the State. 42. The ED analyzed the predicate complaint and the data shared by the ITD. On the basis of these documents and records, it gets established that a well-planned systematic conspiracy was executed by the syndicate to earn illegal commission in the sale and licensing of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh. Accordingly, an ECIR bearing number was ECIR/RPZO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to extract cash bribes for foreign liquor makers in respect of IMFL and FL. Also, there was strong demand for good quality foreign brands. Hence, in April 2020, the syndicate introduced a fourth type of mechanism to extort bribe from FL makers also by introducing the concept of FL-10A licenses. These licenses were again given to three chosen associates of Anwar Dhebar. These license holders were to act as the 'collectors' or intermediary and buy FL and then sell to Chhattisgarh Government Warehouses and generated commission of around 10% on even FL. Further, on top of this commission, the licenses were given with a promise that 50-60% of the final profit amount of the FL-10A licensee shall be paid to the syndicate. The multi-national companies were already briefed about this mechanism by Arunpati Tripathi. The FL-10(A) license was given only to following three people who were ready to hike prices in the middle and thus, ensure payment of cash bribe - Sanjay Mishra (M/s Nexgen Power Engitech Private Limited), Atul Kumar Singh and Mukesh Manchanda (M/s Om Sai Beverages Pvt Ltd. and Asheesh Saurabh Kedia (M/s Dishita Ventures Private Limited), 45. A total of Rs. 2161,44,81, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s scuttled and not properly dealt with due to the joint actions of Arunpati Tripathi, Niranjan Das, IAS, Anwar Dhebar and Anil Tuteja. This fact is corroborated from WhatsApp Chats and the admission made by Arunpati Tripathi in his statement recorded under Section 50 of PMLA in ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. Similarly, there were other complaints regarding hologram and WhatsApp chats reveal that Arunapti Tripathi had forwarded the draft replies to these complaints to Anil Tuteja and Anwar Dhebar. Investigation has revealed that Arunpati Tripathi was forwarding these draft replies to Anil Tuteja for making necessary corrections. This act of Arunpati Tripathi of forwarding the draft replies to Anil Tuteja for final vetting once again proves that Anil Tuteja was the final authority and architect of the liquor scam. Anil Tuteja's association with the crime syndicate can be deciphered by the fact that message in relation to police seizure of unaccounted liquor received from Arunpati Tripathi by Anwar Dhebar was forwarded by him to "settle the issue with the concerned Police officials. The ED has found strong documentary evidence of the fact that a significant portion of the proceeds of crime ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llers they have supplied a total of 40.67 Lakh cases of Part-B liquor which implies that an amount of approx. Rs. 120 Crore was the illegal earning of Anil Tuteja and Anwar Dhebar out of the sale of unaccounted liquor. Further there are digital evidences as discussed above that reveal that Anil Tuteja had received commission/ bribe amount Rs.14.41 crore from Anwar Dhebar via Nitesh Purohit during 28.07.2019 to 20.12.2019. 48. In the statements dated 28.04.2023, 29.04.2023 and 01.05.2023 (Annexure-R-4) recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, Arvind Singh inter-alia stated that, the three country liquor suppliers also supplied unaccounted liquor which was referred to as Part-B liquor to CSMCL shops and its sale proceeds were collected by Vikas Agrawal and his team and handed over to Anwar Dhebar. In respect of Part-B, the sale target was passed on to Arunpati Tripathi by Anwar Dhebar which was further passed on to Janardan Singh Kaurav, ADEO. Janardan Singh Kaurav then passed on this information to the distillers and concerned district Excise Heads. Thereafter, the distillers supplied Part-B liquor as told by Anwar Dhebar. The fake holograms for Part-B liquor were supplied by M/s Prizm H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Managing Director of M/s CSMCL. Acting upon the information, Chhattisgarh Police registered an FIR vide Crime No. 04/2024 at EOW/ACB (Annexure-R-6). Similarly, on account of role of duplicate hologram manufacturer based out of Noida a disclosure was made to UP Police as well on 28.07.2023. Acting upon the information, Up Police registered an FIR vide 196/2023 at Kasna, PS, UP (Annexure-R-7). The PAO dated 21.05.2023 attaching assets worth Rs. 124 Crore in the hands of accused persons was also forwarded along with the disclosure letter. In the PAO, the entire modus operandi was explained with minute details, details of evidence collected during the course of investigation were also discussed, excerpts of relevant statements were also placed in the PAO. It would be safe to claim that even a brief reading of the PAO by any impartial agency would have convinced it about the alleged commission of cognizable offence as disclosed vide aforesaid letter. In the said letter, ED shared findings of investigation which revealed that the conduct of the officers mentioned above was in contravention of multiple sections of PC Act inter alia section 7, Section 13 of the PC act. The officers had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of the Anwar Dhebar and Arunpati Tripathi. Further the Supreme Court did not quash the ECIR or any other proceedings emanating out of ECIR bearing No ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. The Supreme Court also did not bar the ED from recording a new ECIR in this matter on the basis of FIRs registered by EOW/ACB and UP Police. Accordingly, an ECIR bearing No. RPZO/04/2024 was recorded on the basis of FIR No 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by EOW/ACB, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, to investigate the matter under the provisions of PMLA, 2002. The FIR has been registered alleging commission of offence punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC and 7 and 12 of PC Act, 1988 against Anil Tuteja, (Retd I.A.S.), Anwar Dhebar, Arunpati Tripathi (I.T.S.) then Special Secretary Government Commerce and Industry Department, and MD, CG State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Vikas Agarwal alias Subbu, Sanjay Diwan and others for collecting commissions and supplying unaccounted liquor to government liquor shops, resulting in an approximate loss of Rs. 2161 crore to the government. 53. During investigation into the new ECIR, all pertinent documents, including statements recorded under section 50 of the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to keep the system functioning. Many evidences were gathered associating the petitioner with Anwar Dhebar, the main perpetrator of the illegal collection. There are digital evidences that reveal that the petitioner had received commission/ bribe amount Rs.14.41 crore from Anwar Dhebar. The petitioner has thus acquired proceeds of crime emanating out of the illegal collection being made in liquor through multiple avenues. He had knowingly and willingly involved himself in the money laundering activities of the liquor syndicate and thus is liable to be proceeded against under PMLA, 2002. The ITD and EOW/ACB are independent in their operations and the ED does not have any control either direct or indirect in their operations. Thus, the allegation of the applicant that ITD or EOW/ACB are acting against them with mala-fide intent does not carry any logic. Additionally, the ED is bound by law under Section 66(2) of PMLA to report commission of other offences noted during the investigation. It was under this obligation that the Directorate wrote to Chhattisgarh Police and UP Police and informed them about the findings of the investigation. The FIRs were registered at different places on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the FIR is mandatorily required to be registered. Further, the ECIR is merely an internal document which cannot be quashed and the offence of money laundering is an independent offence. 60. In support of its contention, the ED would rely on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Magraj Patodia v. R.K.Birla & Others {AIR 1971 SC 1295}, R.M.Malkani v. State of Maharashtra {(1973) 1 SCC 471}, Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection of Income Tax (Investigation) New Delhi {(1974) 1 SCC 345}, A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak {(1988) 2 SCC 602, paragraph 6} Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar {1962 Supp (2) SCR 297}, Mohd. Akram Ansari v. Chief Election Officer & Others {(2008) 2 SCC 95}, Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh {(2014) 2 SCC 1} Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Others v. Union of India & Others {2022 SCC OnLine 929}, V. Senthil Balaji v. State Represented by Deputy Director & Others {2023 SCC OnLine SC 934}, a Single Bench judgment of the Orissa High Court in Jitendra Nath Patnaik v. Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneshwar {CRLMC 2891/2023 decided on 02.09.2023}, a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in N. Dhanraj Kochar & Others v. Director, Directorate of Enfo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer of the old ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, Thandi Lal Meena, Assistant Director. Further, the petitioner contended that no summons are issued in new ECIR, in this regard, it is submitted that during investigation in new ECIR, many persons have been summoned under Section 50 of PMLA and statements of distillers, FL-10A license holders and others are recorded and in their statements they have reaffirmed their statements given in the ECIR bearing No. RPZO/11/2022. The petitioner also contended that no search operation is carried out in ECIR/ RPZO/04/2024, in this regard, it is submitted that it is not mandatory under PMLA to conduct search operation under Section 17 of PMLA, before arresting any person. On the basis of all of the documents and records, it gets established that a well-planned systematic conspiracy was executed by the syndicate to earn illegal commission in the sale and licensing of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh. In view of the facts arises out of investigation in new ECIR (ECIR/RPZO/04/2024) and materials/evidence obtained from ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, reasons to believe were recorded in writing and accordingly the petitioner herein was arrested. The petitioner further conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplete legal manner and the same is not violation of the Supreme Court's order dated 18.07.2023. Further the fact of registration of new ECIR on the basis of EOW/ACB FIR was also intimated to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court did not bar the ED from recording of new ECIR. Accordingly ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 was recorded. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner are vehemently denied as the same are baseless. The petitioner contended that DE conducted by Commercial Tax Department, Chhattisgarh, did not find any irregularities in case. In this regard, it is submitted that this vitiates the procedure of law. The Department which is under the scrutiny, where senior officer like Excise Secretary and Excise Minister were being summoned for their role in the scam, has conducted its own in-house enquiry and claimed that there was no wrongdoing in the Excise Department. They did not discuss the prosecution complaint filed by the ED which was already filed before the Special Court. The findings of investigation of the ED, evidences collected and facts presented were not paid heed to and everyone involved in the scam, was given a clean chit. It is a sham report and does not have any b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra {(2011) 10 SCC 445 paragraph 60}, Pranab Chatterjee v. State of Bihar {(1970) 3 SCC 926, paragraph 9}, Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi {2019) 5 SCC 266 paragraph 19}, Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate {(1974) 4 SCC 141}. It is further contended that there is a distinction between the terms detention and arrest and in this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra {(2014) 16 SCC 623, paragraphs 9 to 16}, decision of the Delhi High Court in Gautam Thapar v. Directorate of Enforcement {2021 SCC OnLine Del 4599, paragraphs 2, 13 and 15}, Roshan Beevi v. State of T.N. {1984 CriLJ 134}. An offence of money laundering has been disclosed from the information which has resulted in registration of the offence against the petitioners. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary {(supra) paragraphs 269 and 295}, Dr. Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik & Others {2022 SCC OnLine SC 1465 paragraph 7}, ED v. Aditya Tripathi {Cr.A. 1401/2023, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anil Tuteja 721/2024 Yes No Yes No Yes 21.04.2024 Anwar Dhebar 860/2024 Yes Yes No Yes No NA Arunpati Tripathi 936/2024 Yes Yes No Yes No NA Niranjan Das 959/2024 Yes No No No No NA Anil Tuteja 1098/2024 Yes No No Yes Yes 21.04.2024 Anwar Dhebar 1186/2024 Yes Yes No Yes No NA Nitesh Purohit 1286/2024 Yes No No No No NA Nitesh Purohit 1287/2024 Yes No No No No NA Yash Purohit 1288/2024 Yes No No No No NA Yash Purohit 1444/2024 Yes No No No No NA Arvind Singh 1467/2024 Yes Yes No Yes Yes 01.07.2024 69. So far as the other petitions of the first batch are concerned, i.e. Cr.M.P. No. 860/2024 is filed by petitioner-Anwar Dhebar who is a businessman at Raipur, Cr.M.P. No. 936/2024 is filed by Arun Pati Tripathi, who was the Special Secretary of the Excise Department in the State of Chhattisgarh and Managing Director of CSMCL and is an Indian Telecom Services (ITS) Officer of the Department of Telecom, Ministry of Communication. It is alleged that at the best of the petitioner-Anwar Dhebar, Arun Pati Tripathi was posted as MD, CSMCL who got it approved from the State Government by the influence of A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh various means. In all these petitions, the common relief that has been prayed is quashing of the FIR bearing No. 4/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the ACB, Raipur. 70. So far as the other petitions of the second batch are concerned i.e. Cr.M.P. No. 1186/2024 is filed by Anwar Dhebar, Cr.M.P. No. 1444/2024 is filed by Yash Purohit, who is the son of Nitesh Purohit {petitioner in Cr.M.P No. 1286/2024}, who is a businessman Cr.M.P. No. 1467/2024 has been filed by Arvind Singh who is alleged to have provided logistical support to the liquor syndicate and his family members were supplying unaccounted bottles to the distillers of country liquor. Cr.M.P.No. 1287/2024 is filed by Nitesh Purohit who is a businessman and owner of Hotel Giriraj at Raipur. Cr.M.P. No. 1807/2024 is filed by petitioner-Arunpati Tripathi (ITS). The common relief that has been prayed in these petitions is quashing of the investigation and all proceedings emanating from and in relation to ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 registered by the ED and further to stay the effect and operations of all the investigations arising out of the said case. 71. Since both the batch of petitions arise out of the raid conducted by the ITD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spiracy as scheduled offence, the ED started and continued investigation in the first ECIR which is ECIR/RPZO/ 11/2022. This was registered on 18.11.2022. Various search actions were done under the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 and petitioners were called for interrogation under ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. At this stage, the petitioner-Anil Tuteja approached the Supreme Court by WP(Crl.) No. 153/2023 {Yash Tuteja & Another v. Union of India & Others} wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed three orders which are of importance. The first order which was passed in presence of the counsel for the ED is the order dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure P/6) wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed the following orders: "Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the allegation is about the offences under the Income Tax Act so far as the predicate offence is concerned and the cognizance has not been taken by the competent court. At this stage, he only seeks protection so far as any coercive step is concerned and submits that he has already joined the investigation. No coercive steps be taken against the petitioner(s) till the next date. List on 18th July, 2023" 74. After the aforesaid ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as dealing with a prosecution without jurisdiction and directed the prosecuting agency including the ED to stay their hands off. According to Mr. Agrawal, the ED did two things; one, before the aforesaid order and the second, after this order. On 11.07.2023, the ED wrote a letter to the State of Chhattisgarh with the same allegations on the basis of materials they had collected in ECIR/ RPZO/11/2022 which was the subject matter of challenge and told the State of Chhattisgarh to register an FIR. But as on 18.07.2023, the State of Chhattisgarh was also being represented before the Supreme Court and hence, the State of Chhattisgarh, at that time, in deference to the aforesaid order, did not register any FIR against the petitioner and conducted some sort of preliminary enquiry which ended in favour of Mr. Tuteja. After this order was passed, the ED wrote a letter to the UP Police to register an FIR which complied with the same and registered an FIR. The petitioners moved an application before the Supreme Court stating that in dereliction and violation of the order dated 18.07.2023, the ED has wrote to the State of Chhattisgarh as well as State of UP to register an FIR against the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersons have been made accused. In the said report, it has been stated that ED had been conducting money laundering investigation in file No. ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 based on the prosecution complaint filed by IT investigation Wing at Tis Hazari Court and during the course of ED investigation, it has revealed that a criminal syndicate has been operating in the State of Chhattisgarh which was extorting illegal commission in the sale of liquor and was also involved in unauthorised sale of unaccounted liquor through government liquor shops. It was estimated that proceeds of crime of around Rs. 2161 crore was generated by the suspects and that the illegal gratification was classified into three parts, Part A-illegal commission charged from the liquor suppliers for accounted (official sale of liquor in Chattisgarh, Part B-sale of off the record unaccounted illicit country liquor from State run shops. This was done with the active involvement of Distillers, Hologram manufacturer, Bottle maker, transporter, man-power management and District Excise Officials, and, Part-C, annual commission paid by Distillers for allowing them to operate a cartle and divide the market share amongst themselves in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Courts have come to the rescue of the petitioners, the respondent agencies have by-passed that position and opened another door. It is that action which is mala fide, though not qua any specific individual officer but a mala fide in law. This is a scenario where the institutional machinery is utilized for overcoming the hurdles which had been placed against them as on that date. So far as petitioner-Anil Tuteja and Yash Tuteja are concerned, the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 01.04.2024 has been pleased to grant a protective order that no coercive steps shall be taken against them till the next date of hearing, however, the investigation was allowed to go on. So far as the petitioner-Anwar Dhebar is concerned {in Cr.M.P. No. 860/2024}, when he moved this petition on 03.04.2024, even before this petition could be taken up, on 04.04.2024, he came to be arrested by the ACB. In 14.06.2024, Anwar Dhebar was granted bail in the ACB matter in M.Cr.C. No. 3455/2024 by this Court. When he was released on 18.06.2024, he was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police in connection with FIR No. 196/2023 registered by the Kasna Police Station, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. As such, the prosecution ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the writ petition was disposed of. After the aforesaid order dated 08.04.2024, in the garb of saying that the Supreme Court had protected the ED, the ED registered the ECIR/ RPZO/04/2024 on 11.04.2024. Thereafter, the IO of the ECIR/ RPZO/04/2024 called the IO of the quashed complaint of ECIR/ RPZO/11/2022 on 16.04.2024 and asks him to hand over all the material that he had which included documents, statements recorded by that IO in that case and thereafter, he arrests petitioner-Anil Tuteja exercising powers under Section 19 of the PMLA. 83. The IO had to record the reasons to believe that the person is guilty. The present IO of ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 did not even call the persons who had given their statements earlier to verify as to whether they had really given and correctly given the statements or not. In five days time, the petitioners have been held to be guilty by a premier investigating agency like ED. The ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 had no material other than what ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 had. ECIR/RPZO/ 11/2022 did not even name Anil Tuteja as accused. So the person who was not accused ear;oer. on this very material, is found guilty by ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 and the ED has filed a prosecution c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22 dated 18.11.2022 was recorded and subsequently investigations under the provisions of PMLA, 2002 were carried out. During the course of investigation in this matter, multiple statements were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002; documents were obtained from various agencies; Provisional Attachment Order was issued in the case and Prosecution Complaint was also filed on 04.07.2023. 4. That, given the similarities in the ongoing probe, all pertinent documents, including statements recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, were acquired from the Investigating Officer, Mr. Thandi Lal Meena, Assistant Director, who had filed the Prosecution Complaint in ECIR RPZO/11/2022. These documents and statements were obtained during Mr. Thandi Lal Meena's statement recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, 2002. 5. That, the predicate offence FIR; Documents including the statements recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 shared by Mr Thandi Lal Meena, Assistant Director, Prosecution Complaint filed by IT and the data shared by the Income Tax Department have been analysed. On the basis of these documents and records, it gets established that a well-planned systematic conspiracy was executed by the liquo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stody. 86. Mr. Agrawal has drawn attention of the Court to the summons {Annexure P/23 to Cr.M.P. No. 1098/2024} issued on 20.04.2024 wherein the petitioner-Anil Tuteja has made an endorsement to the effect that on a summon being issued to him, he had appeared in the office of the ACB. The petitioner was directed to appear before the ED at 4 p.m. but on the request of the petitioner, he was issued another summon for appearing on the same date at 5:30 p.m. and he has further mentioned that he accompanied with the officers of the ED to their office. When these facts were brought to the knowledge of the learned Judge before whom the petitioner was presented for remand, all these issues were placed orally and in writing. A remand Court, under Section 167 Cr.P.C., has to satisfy himself with regard to the validity of the arrest. That order of the remand has now been challenged. 87. So far as the third petition i.e., Cr.M.P. No. 1186/2024 where the petitioner is Mr. Anwar Dhebar, Mr. Agrawal would submit that he was an accused in ECIR/ RPZO/11/2022. The investigation got done everything was over he was arrested and then released on bail. The said prosecution complaint got quashed. The A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tuteja (IAS), Mr. Vidhu Gupta, Anwar Dhebar and other unknown persons. The petitioner-Vidhu Gupta is the manufacturer of the holograms. The tender was awarded to him for supplying of the holograms. For the same set of facts, and on the same sharing of the information, FIR No. 4/2024 has been registered at a much later point of time i.e. on 17.01.2024. There can be no second FIR or no fresh investigation on the same set of allegations. There is already an offence registered in the UP and how can he be tried for the same act twice which has been held in T.T.Anthony (supra). 91. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate appears for the petitioner-Arunpati Tripathi {Cr.M.P. No. 936/2024 wherein FIR No. 4/2024 is under challenge} and {Cr.M.P. No. 1807/2024 wherein ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 is under challenge} and petitioner-Niranjan Das {Cr.M.P. No. 959/2024 in which FIR bearing No. 04/2024 is under challenge}. In Cr.M.P. No. 1807/2024, petitioner-Arunpati Tripati was arrested in ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 and granted bail by a learned Single Judge of this High Court on 15.02.2024 in M.Cr.C. No. 60/2024. In the said bail order at paragraph 7, it has been observed that on a specific query made to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 and in their statements they had reaffirmed their statements given in the ECIR bearing No. RPZO/11/2022. On the basis of all of the above documents and records, it gets established that a well-planned systematic conspiracy was executed by the syndicate to earn illegal commission in the sale and licensing of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh. 7. That after recording the reasons to believe, Anil Tuteja is found guilty of the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA. Anil Tuteja was arrested on 21.04.2024 at 03:54 A.M. at Enforcement Directorate, Raipur Zonal Office. Presently Anil Tuteja is in Judicial Custody of Hon'ble PMLA Court Raipur. 8. In light of the investigation conducted under PMLA, 2002 as discussed in foregoing paras, the role and responsibilities of the accused No. 1 to 4 in the liquor syndicate is summarized as below: xxx ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en registered against 70 persons where his name appears at serial No. 6 but there is no specific allegation in the FIR. The only allegation against Niranjan Das is that during his tenure, he had implemented FL-10A licence and extorted bribe from the foreign liquor manufacturer. He being an officer of the State was bound to comply with the orders of the Government. The said policy is still continuing. Niranjan Das is also named in the UP FIR. 93. A specific query was made by the Court that whether the ECIR/RPZO/ 11/2022 was quashed qua the petitioner-Anwar Dhebar and Arunpati Tripathi, or it was quashed in whole. In response, Mr. Agrawal submits that prosecution complaint in ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 was quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that for others no orders were required and as such their petitions were disposed of and that is the reason why, it is the contention of the ED that the ECIR/RPZO/11 still survives. Mr. Agrawal submits that ECIR is not an FIR as it does not have an existence. So quashing of the prosecution complaint is the only action that can be taken. There is no point of quashing something which is an internal thing. The complaint was arising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners, stems on the order of 18.07.2023 {which is at page 195 of Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024} and the petitioners say that this is the violation of that order. The order of the Supreme Court is being read too far. Its a short order, but much has been made of it. On reading it carefully, it would be clear that the complaint that was returned was the IT complaint. The order is confined to any action taken pursuant to the IT authority. The FIR which State of Chattisgarh has lodged has nothing to do with the IT complaint. There is an order of March, 2024 and April, 2024 of the Supreme Court whereby the petitioners have been rebuffed by the Supreme Court on this aspect of the matter after having pointedly asked for relief. But the fact of the matter is that order dated 18.07.2023 cannot be read to be that no action for any criminal offence whatsoever by any of the concerned authorities can be taken against the petitioners. The case is being stretched far too far and rightly the petitioners have been rebuffed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner-Anil Tuteja filed a petition WP (Crl.) No. 141/2024 in Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024. First the petitioners are trying to construe the Supreme Court order in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h all consequential actions as being wholly without jurisdiction and in contempt of the Orders of this Hon'le Court. D. Pass any other such Order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper." 98. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 19.03.2024 in the said petition is at page No. 1269 wherein the Supreme Court did not took any action, instead observed as under: "Heard the learned senior counsel appearing of the petitioner. The remedy of the petitioner is to file appropriate proceedings before the concerned High Courts. By granting liberty to the petitioner to do so, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of." 99. According to Mr. Jethmalani, if it was so overreaching as pointed out by Mr. Agrawal that even FIR concerning fake holograms and cheating both the States of UP and Chhattisgarh, so specifically apart from the final order disposing of the petition on 04.01.2024, same thing is passed. On the ground of their construction and the reach, the Supreme Court was the best Court to decide the purport of their order. The specific prayer for quashing of the FIR bearing No. 4/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the State of Chhat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offence which is specifically included in the Schedule." 3. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC could become a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy alleged is of committing an offence which is specifically included in the Schedule to the PMLA. In this case, admittedly, the offences alleged in the complaint except Section 120-B of IPC are not the scheduled offences. Conspiracy to commit any of the offences included in the Schedule has not been alleged in the complaint. ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, which is the subject matter of the complaint, is based on the offences relied upon in the complaint. As the conspiracy alleged is of the commission of offences which are not the scheduled offences, the offences mentioned in the complaint are not scheduled offences within the meaning of clause (y) of sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the PMLA. 4. In paragraph 15 of the decision in the case of Pavana Dibbur, this Court held that: "The condition precedent for the existence of proceeds of crime is the existence of a scheduled offence." Therefore, in the absence of the scheduled offence, as held in the decision mentioned above of this Court, there cannot be any proceeds o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f crime. Hence, there cannot be an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. Therefore, no purpose will be served by directing the Special Court to apply its mind in accordance with Section 203 read with Section 204 of the Cr.PC. That will only be an empty formality. 8. We may note that the petitioners in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 153/2023 and the petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 217/2023 have not been shown as accused in the complaint. Only the second petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 208/2023 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 216/2023 have been shown as accused in the complaint. In the case of those petitioners who are not shown as accused in the complaint, it is unnecessary to entertain the Writ Petitions since the complaint itself is being quashed. 9. Hence, we pass the following order: (i) Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos.153/2023 and 217/2023 are disposed of; (ii) The complaint based on ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, as far as the second petitioner (Anwar Dhebar) in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 208/2023 is concerned, is hereby quashed. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, partly allowed; (iii) The complaint based on ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, as far as the petitioner (Arun Pati Tripathi) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under Section 66(1) of PMLA. The ED is in possession of the IT complaint. So as far as the sharing of information with the concerned agency for necessary action, the ED felt that the complaint also disclosed offences under other law i.e. under the IPC and the PC Act. ITD cannot deal with those issues. So this whole argument about flouting the order of the Supreme Court either by the ED or the State, the State has only received the information and acted upon the same as the State was duty bound to do. If the State receives an information from any source including ED under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, the State is bound to lodge an FIR if it discloses an offence which is very clear and plain law. There is no violation of order of any Court of law, instead the action of the State is complete compliance with the law. 103. According to Mr. Jethmalani, reliance of the petitioners on Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Others (supra) is misplaced. In that case, it was observed that if the root is illegal then every action that has taken place pursuant to that illegal root must also be ignored and struck. In the present case, the root is not illegal. It is in compliance with Section 66(2) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sman etc. Before the last Government demitted office, one of the Excise Official, was appointed to conduct the DE. The EO, who is now an accused in one of the petitions, gave clean chit to every. A self serving clean chit given by an accused in the case which is not confirmed by any competent authority in the Department is a no enquiry. The report of the EO is subject to the acceptance and findings arrived at by the DO. The case law which is referred by the petitioners is Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) {paragraphs 38 and 39} which is not applicable to the present case. In reply, reliance has been placed by Mr. Jethmalani paragraph 12 on the decision of Ajay Kumar Tyagi (supra). In the present case, the EO, Niranjan Das, himself is an accused. . 105. The ACB/EOW has done an independent verification of the ED's letter dated 11.07.2023 which is apparent from the first paragraph at page 65 which reads as under: "उपरोक्त गोपनीय प्रतिवेदन के साथ प्रवर्तन निदे ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ग० राज्य में श्री अनिल टुटेजा, (भा०प्र०से०) संयुक्त सचिच छ०ग० शासन वाणिज्य एवं उद्योग विभाग द्वारा श्री अनवर ढेबर एवं श्री अरूणपति त्रिपाठी (आई०टी०एस) विशेष सचिव, आबकारी विभाग रायपुर एम०डी छ०ग० राज्य मार् ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ो क्षति पहुंचायी गयी है। इसी अवैध रकम से उच्च पदस्थ अधिकारी श्री अनिल टुटेजा, श्री अरूणपति त्रिपाठी एवं श्री अनवर ढेबर द्वारा बहुत से अचल संपत्ति अर्जित की गयी है, जिसे प्रवर्तन निदेशालय द्वारा प्रोविजलन ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t under Section 45 read with Section 44 of the PMLA was filed by the respondent-ED in relation to the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. Post registration of the Chhattisgarh FIR and the new ECIR gets all the ingredients of the scheduled offence and there can be no fault. The petitioners had prayed the Supreme Court to quash the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 and when the party despite having made a prayer for quashing does not get a relief, shall be deemed to be rejected. 108. Not just Anil Tuteja but others like Anwar Dhebar had sought quashing of the ECIR in their substantive writ petition. But despite a prayer for seeking quashing of the FIR, the Supreme Court restricted it only to the complaint. What would be the legal implication of that situation is that it is deemed to be given up, it is deemed to be rejected. In support of this contention, Mr. Jethmalani relies on the decision in Mohd. Akram Ansari v. Chief Election Officer & Others {(2008) 2 SCC 95 paragraph 14}. As such, ECIR/RPZO/ 11/2022 though was assailed before the Supreme Court, but no relief was granted, and hence, is not open to be declared or sought to be declared void by the petitioners. WP(Cr.) 208/2023 filed by Karishma Dhebar, which wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocument of the ED and the fact that FIR in respect of scheduled offence has not been recorded does not come in the way of the Authorities referred to in Section 48 to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating 'civil action' of 'provisional attachment' of property being proceeds of crime....." 110. Therefore the ECIR per se was not illegal or void because the complaint was quashed on account of Pavana Dibbur (supra) or want of scheduled offence. The State was still entitled to conduct enquiry. Subsequent complaint on same set of facts is valid as held in Pramatha Nath Talukdar (supra). Earlier prosecution complaint was quashed on technicality but the petitioners were not given a clean chit. he was not given clean chit. Further reliance is placed on paragraph 431 of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) which reads as under: "431. In the context of the 2002 Act, it must be remembered that the summon is 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 fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, when the State is doing enquiry under Section 50 read with paragraph (xvii)(a) of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), the State does not need an FIR or scheduled offence, the State can collect materials and can enquire into the allegations. Section 50 of PMLA gives ample power to call any person to give evidence or material which is in his possession. The earlier IO in ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, was in possession of relevant material. He was called and under Section 50 of the PMLA, he was bound to produce those materials which have been taken on record and collected while investigating the 2024 ECIR. Section 50(2) of PMLA gives the power to the Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or the Assistant Director 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 the PMLA. It is not restricted to only accused. It is any person whether to give evidence or to give any other information/document. Great emphasis has been laid down by the petitioners on 18.07.2023 order of the Supreme Court by which the stay was granted. The letter of the ED to the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ink a general protective order directed at another investigating agency could have insulated the petitioner from any coercive action in another proceeding started by a different agency, even if there are factual similarities vis-a-vis the allegations. Under The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 ("2002 Act"), money-laundering is an independent offence and in the event there is any allegation of the Enforcement Directorate having acted beyond jurisdiction or their act of arrest is not authorized by law, the petitioner would be entitled to apply before the appropriate Court of law independently. But that question could not be examined in a Special Leave Petition arising from the proceedings in which the question of Money Laundering were not involved." 113. What comes out of these paragraphs is that a protective order in the predicate offence does not enure to the benefit of an accused under PMLA which is facing independent prosecution under Section 19 of the PMLA. In V. Senthil Balaji (supra), the Supreme Court said that Section 19 of the PMLA itself has sufficient safeguards then the power of arrest a Police Officer possess under the Cr.P.C. There is ample evidence against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revent and regulate the commission of offence of money-laundering. The authorised officer would, thus, be expected to and, also in a given case, justified in acting with utmost speed to ensure that the proceeds of crime/property is available for being proceeded with appropriately under the 2002 Act so as not to frustrate any proceedings envisaged by the 2002 Act. In case the scheduled offence is not already registered by the jurisdictional police or complaint filed before the Magistrate, it is open to the authorised officer to still proceed under Section 5 of the 2002 Act whilst contemporaneously sending information to the jurisdictional police under Section 66(2) of the 2002 Act for registering FIR in respect of cognizable offence or report regarding non-cognizable offence and if the jurisdictional police fails to respond appropriately to such information, the authorised officer under the 2002 Act can take recourse to appropriate remedy, as may be permissible in law to ensure that the culprits do not go unpunished and the proceeds of crime are secured and dealt with as per the dispensation provided for in the 2002 Act. Suffice it to observe that the amendment effected in 2015 in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Director or the other authority, so specified by him, be necessary for the purpose of the officer, authority or body specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) to perform his or its functions under that law. (2) If the Director or other authority specified under sub-section (1) is of the opinion, on the basis of information or material in his possession, that the provisions of any other law for the time being in force are contravened, then the Director or such other authority shall share the information with the concerned agency for necessary action." 119. In Ram Lal Narang (supra), the question was not whether the nature and character of the conspiracy had changed by mere inclusion of few more conspirators as accused or by the addition of one more among the objects of the conspiracy. The question was whether the two conspiracies were in substance and truth the same. Where the conspiracy discovered later was found to cover a much larger canvas with broader ramification, it could not be equated with the earlier conspiracy which covered a smaller field of narrower dimensions. 120. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r activity connected with the proceeds of crime, it is open to such authorities to file a formal complaint before the Special Court naming the concerned person for offence of money- laundering under Section 3 of this Act. Considering the scheme of the 2002 Act, though the offence of money-laundering is otherwise regarded as cognizable offence (cognizance whereof can be taken only by the authorities referred to in Section 48 of this Act and not by jurisdictional police) and punishable under Section 4 of the 2002 Act, special complaint procedure is prescribed by law. This procedure overrides the procedure prescribed under 1973 Code to deal with other offences (other than money- laundering offences) in the matter of registration of offence and inquiry/investigation thereof. This special procedure must prevail in terms of Section 71 of the 2002 Act and also keeping in mind Section 65 of the same Act. In other words, the offence of money-laundering cannot be registered by the jurisdictional police who is governed by the regime under Chapter XII of the 1973 Code. The provisions of Chapter XII of the 1973 Code do not apply in all respects to deal with information derived relating to commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cument created by the department before initiating penal action or prosecution against the person involved with process or activity connected with proceeds of crime. Thus, ECIR is not a statutory document, nor there is any provision in 2002 Act requiring Authority referred to in Section 48 to record ECIR or to furnish copy thereof to the accused unlike Section 154 of the 1973 Code. The fact that such ECIR has not been recorded, does not come in the way of the authorities referred to in Section 48 of the 2002 Act to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating civil action of attachment of property being proceeds of crime by following prescribed procedure in that regard. 458. The next issue is: whether it is necessary to furnish copy of ECIR to the person concerned apprehending arrest or at least after his arrest? Section 19(1) of the 2002 Act postulates that after arrest, as soon as may be, the person should be informed about the grounds for such arrest. This stipulation is compliant with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Being a special legislation and considering the complexity of the inquiry/investigation both for the purposes of initiating civil action as wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not reveal all aspects of the offence in question. In several cases, even the names of persons actually involved in the commission of offence are not mentioned in the FIR and described as unknown accused. Even, the particulars as unfolded are not fully recorded in the FIR. Despite that, the accused named in any ordinary offence is able to apply for anticipatory bail or regular bail, in which proceeding, the police papers are normally perused by the concerned Court. On the same analogy, the argument of prejudice pressed into service by the petitioners for non-supply of ECIR deserves to be answered against the petitioners. For, the arrested person for offence of money-laundering is contemporaneously informed about the grounds of his arrest; and when produced before the Special Court, it is open to the Special Court to call upon the representative of ED to produce relevant record concerning the case of the accused before him and look into the same for answering the need for his continued detention. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, the argument under consideration does not take the matter any further." 123. Apart from the legal aspects of the case, from perusal of the FIR N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liquor scam in the State of Chhattisgarh in file No ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. 2. Investigation under PMLA has revealed that one company namely M/s Prizm Holography Security Films Pvt Ltd based at Noida was illegally granted tender to supply Hologramsto the Excise Department of Chhattisgarh. The Page 1 of 6 company was not eligible to participate in the tender process, but in connivance with the companys owners, the senior officials of the State of Chhattisgarh namely - Sh Arunpati Tripathi ITS (Special Secretary Excise), Sh Niranjan Das IAS (Excise Commissioner), Sh Anil Tuteja IAS- modified the tender conditions and illegally allotted the tender to M/s Prizm Holography Security Films Pvt Ltd Noida. As a quid pro quo, they took commission of 8 paisa per Hologram and also took a commitment to supply unaccounted duplicate Holograms to carry out a sinister crime of selling illegal Country Liquor bottles from State-run shops in Chhattisgarh. The Hologram was in Security Films Pvt Ltd Noida, in his statement recorded u/s 50 holograms were manufactured in their Noida factory premises per his admission u/s 50 of PMLA 2002 (which is a quasi Excise Office inserting serial numbers at their end. Whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upply of duplicate holograms. 4. Mr Vidhu Gupta, Managing Director of M/s Prizm Holography of PMLA, 2002 on 02.04.2023/03.04. 2023 has admitted to his role and admitted that both the original and duplicate at A2/32-33,Site 5 UPSIDC, Kasana, Greater Noida, UP. As judicial proceeding) he supplied the original holograms to the duplicate holograms with pre-inserted were fully completed at syndicate operatives. Relevant portion of is statement is Department, Chhattisgarh in October, 2019 and it supplied duplicate holograms till June, 2022. This supply of duplicate hologram enabled the syndicate to make sale of unaccounted distillers have also admitted to the above findings and have duplicate holograms were also seized from the premises of one directorate has also revealed that multiple companies Holography Films Securities Pvt Ltd Noida. However, the Arunpati Tripathi ITS, Mr Anil Tuteja IAS, Mr Niranjan Das IAS only providing holograms to Chhattisgarh but also has clients across multiple States including other Excise Departments. As per ED investigation, it has also supplied its services to the state of Jharkhand as well. Thus, it could be following similar malpractices in other states ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otment of hologram tender to M/s Prizm complaints were brushed aside byactive collusion of Mr. and Mr Anwar Dhebar. 10. It is submitted that M/s PHSF is not Vidhu Gupta wherein he accepted his role in supply of duplicate holograms, preparation of duplicate hologram at his factory. 3. Statement dated 19.04.2023 of Mr. Arunpati Tripathi wherein his verified the role of M/s PHSF in supplying duplicate holograms. 4. Statement dated 13.05.2023 of Mr. Arunpati Tripathi revealing supply of draft reply to complaints. 5.Complaints dated 04.10.2019 and 01.10.2019 made by M/s Hololive Corporation and M/s Montage Corporation respectively against allotment of tender. 6. Statement dated 21.06.2023 of Mr. Manoj Sharma of M/s Hololive Corporation wherein he had admitted to the making of complaint and how M/s PHSF was not eligible for the job of supplying holograms. 7. Prosecution Complaint dated 04.07.2023 filed by Enforcement Directorate before competent court." 124. The FIR registered by the State of Chhattisgarh, being No. 4/2024 on 17.01.2024 on the basis of the letter dated 11.07.2023 of the ED, is much more detailed one running in about 11 pages. It states that proceeds of crime is estimate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Section 19 of the PMLA is 'reason to believe' on the basis of material in possession and not 'evidence in possession'. In the present cases, prima facie case is made out against the petitioners herein. 127. The ED had initiated an investigation in the matter by recording an ECIR bearing No. RPZO/04/2024 on 11.04.2024. ED analysed the predicate offence FIR No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by EOW/ACB, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Police under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC; and 7 and 12 of PC Act, 1988; documents including the statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, 2002 shared by Mr. Thandi Lal Meena, Assistant Director; Prosecution Complaint filed by IT and the data shared by the ITD. On the basis of these documents and records, it gets established that a well-planned systematic conspiracy was executed by the syndicate to earn illegal commission in the sale and licensing of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh. Summons were issued by ED and detailed statements were recorded in quasi-judicial proceedings under Section 50 of PMLA for the following category of individuals (1) Main Distillers manufacturing Country Liquor and IMFL (2) FL-10A License Holders (3) Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el excise department. This syndicate comprises of senior bureaucrats of State, politicians, their associates and officials of excise department. In February, 2019, Arunpati Tripathi (ITS Officer) was chosen by the syndicate to lead CSMCL and later, in May, 2019, he was made the Managing Director of the organization at the behest of Anwar Dhebar. As part of the conspiracy, Arunpati Tripathi was assigned with the task to maximize the bribe commission collected on liquor procured by M/s CSMCL, and to make necessary arrangement for sale of non-duty paid liquor through the CSMCL run shops. Mr Arunpati Tripathi was supported by Anwar Dhebar, Anil Tuteja andother Senior IAS Officers in this operation. In furtherance of his plans, Anwar Dhebar gave the task of cash collection to Vikas Agarwal @ Subbu and the logistics were set to be the responsibility of Arvind Singh. Thus, the syndicate took the shape. The syndicate in furtherance of their plan gave the manpower supply contract to M/s Sumeet Facilities Ltd. which was associated with Vikas Agarwal (Associate of Anwar Dhebar). The contract to supply the holograms was also illegally awarded to M/s Prizm Holography & Films Securities Pvt Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entire commission of PART-A has been sponsored by the Chhattisgarh State Exchequer only. 132. As per the ED, in terms of unaccounted kachha PART-B Liquor, a more sinister scheme was made. The syndicate conspired to manufacture and sell unaccounted illicit liquor through CSMCL run shops. As part of the conspiracy, duplicate holograms were provided to distillers by the syndicate; duplicate bottles were procured in cash by the distiller, All the safety features introduced to ensure authentic liquor supply were compromised by the Excise officials to camouflage sale of this illicit liquor. Liquor was transported directly from distiller to shops by-passing State Warehouses. Excise officials have also been found to be involved in assisting the syndicate in transportation and sale of the unaccounted liquor. Outsourced manpower was trained to sell unaccounted liquor for petty gain. Entire sale was done in cash. Payment of Income tax, excise duty etc. was out of question. Poor consumer was the only one who was unaware that he was buying unaccounted liquor. The entire sale was off the books. Entire sale consideration was siphoned off with each person getting its share including Distille ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kers in respect of IMFL & FL. Also, there was strong demand for good quality foreign brands. Hence, in April 2020, the syndicate introduced a 4th type of mechanism to extort bribe from FL makers also by introducing the concept of FL-10A licenses. These licenses were again given to three chosen associates of Anwar Dhebar. These license holders were to act as the 'collectors' or intermediary and buy Foreign Liquor and then sell to Chhattisgarh government warehouses and generated commission of around 10% on even FL. Further, on top of this commission, the licenses were given with a promise that 50- 60% of the final profit amount of the FL-10A licensee shall be paid to the syndicate. Hence, it can be concluded that the syndicate completely hijacked the administration of Excise Department in State by virtue of following actions: - (i) Placement of Mr Arunpati Tripathi at the head of M/s CSMCL and Special Secretary in State Excise Department (ii) Willing alignment of major Chhattisgarh based distilleries granting of manpower tender to M/s Sumeet Facilities Ltd. and others. This ensured compliant office staff at shops (iii) Granting of cash collection tender to M/s Top Securities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur and the order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Special Judge, PMLA, Raipur, on the ground that a remand Court, under Section 167 Cr.P.C., has to satisfy himself with regard to the validity of the arrest. There is no disagreement with respect to the said fact that the Magistrate passing the order for remand has to satisfy himself with regard to the validity of the arrest. In the present case, an organised crime has been allegedly committed by the petitioners and other co-accused persons some of whom are holding high posts are IAS and ITS officers and there is possibility that they may influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidences. The learned Magistrate had perused the case file/case diary and found that there were cogent reasons for arrest of the accused/petitioner and the investigation was not possible to be concluded within 24 hours. Thus, looking to the nature of the offence and requirement of further investigation and all other relevant facts and circumstances of the case, and as such, he was sent to jail in judicial custody for a period of one day. On the next date i.e. on 22.04.2024, since the Special Judge, PMLA A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a scheduled offence for the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. This is completely wrong claim a on the part of petitioner. ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 was registered on the basis of prosecution complaint filed by Income Tax Department and not the Chhattisgarh FIR. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the Chhattisgarh FIR i.e. the underlying scheduled offence itself is liable to be quashed and thus the impugned ECIR is unsustainable in law. In this regard, during the investigation, commission of scheduled offences under multiple acts were found. Hence, the ED being duty bound by law to report such contraventions of other laws, issued a correspondence to multiple states where such contraventions were noticed. Findings of the investigation were shared with UP Police and Chhattisgarh Police. It may be noted that information was shared with the Chhattisgarh Police on 11.07.2023 i.e. prior to stay granted by Supreme Court. Further, on 28.07.2023, information was shared with UP Police as well on account of hologram being produced in the State of UP and supply thereof to multiple States of India. The said fact of disclosing information by the ED has been brought up before the Supreme Court as well o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early brought out in the case. Investigation conducted has revealed that the assets purchased in the name of entities controlled by petitioners and in the name of their family members during relevant period were procured out of proceeds of crime. Thus, in light of strong evidences, there is no scope of mala fide in the whole investigation. Digital evidence, flow of funds and statements of multiple entities under Section 50 of PMLA, 2002 collected during the course of investigation clearly establishes the role of petitioner. There are following judgment which also confirms the above stand of the ED. In this regard, the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. V. Directorate of Enforcement (2022) {W.P. (Crl.) 1808/2021 and CRL.M.As.14972-73/2021 vide its judgement dated 11.03.2022} observed as follows: "36. With regard to the allegation of mala fide it would be apposite to note that the same is to be established to a specific assertion on the basis of proven facts and not on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The burden of establishing mala fide is very heavy on the person who alleges it and further ofien requires relevant persons against whom such allegatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Supreme Court, in this regard, a Single Bench judgment of the Orissa High Court in Jitendra Nath Patnaik (supra) a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in N. Dhanraj Kochar & Others (supra) and a Single Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Pawan Insaa (supra), would be relevant to take note of. The registration of an ECIR by the officers of the ED cannot be a subject matter of judicial review under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Further, in a catena of decisions cited above, it has been held that ECIR is an internal document the quashing of which cannot be sought. 146. There is further no dispute with regard to the proposition of law that stay of any investigation should be done in the rarest of the rare case. It cannot be granted casually as has been held in Directorate of Enforcement v. Niraj Tyagi {SLP No. 10913/2023}, Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. {(2012) 2 SCC 688, paragraph 25, 27 and 55} and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. {supra}. The investigation is the sole domain of the investigating agency. The Court cannot step into the shoes of the investigating agencies to decide the claim of the complainant or the accused. 147. So far as the contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on whereas the petitioners Niranjan Das, Yash Purohit and Nitesh Purohit have not joined the investigation. 150. It has further been pointed out by Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh that till date, in the ACB case i.e. FIR No. 4/2024, charge sheet has been filed on 01.07.2024 against three petitioners namely Arunpati Tripathi, Arvind Singh and Anwar Dhebar, and the fourth one being Trilok Singh Dhillon who is not the petitioner in this batch of petition. The investigation with respect to other petitioners is still pending. Anwar Dhebar was granted bail by a Single Judge of this High Court in M.Cr.C. No. 3455/2024 and the State has filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court challenging the same, which is pending. Later, Anwar Dhebar has been arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police in respect of FIR registered in Kasna Police Station, Noida. 151. From perusal of the FIR and the ECIR in question, it cannot be said that no prima facie offence whatsoever is disclosed against the petitioners. Moreover, the material collected during the investigation goes to show that the nature of offences committed by the accused/ petitioners has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
