9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the allegations and scope of investigation in both the FIRs are different from each other. The State is conducting investigation regarding allegation of charging of illegal commission, sale of unaccounted illicit country liquor wherein usage of hologram alongwith other methods was a modus operandi and payment of annual commission by distillers for operation of cartel, which are not within the scope of investigation of the FIR registered by the State of Uttar Pradesh. 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 estimated to be Rs. 2161 Crores. Illegal commission has been charged from the liquor supplies for accounted sale of liquor in Chhattisgarh. Sale of off the record unaccounted illicit country liquor from the State run shops was done with the active involvement of Distillers, Hologram manufacturer, Bottle Maker, transporter, manpower management and District Excise Officials. Annual Commission paid by Distillers for allowing them to operate a cartel and divide the market share among themselves in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... race the assets created out of these proceeds of crime. 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 caused huge financial loss to the State exchequer and the estimated proceeds of crime is of around Rs. 2161 Crores. In the FIR, there are 70 named persons including bureaucrats, politicians, businessman and other individuals and the present is a case of an organized crime which needs to be taken to the logical conclusion by the investigating agencies i.e. the State Police and the ED. None of the action of the respondent State/ACB EOW or the ED is found to be in contravention of any of the provisions of the PMLA or in violation of any order passed by the Supreme Court. Thus, no strong case is made out for interference by this Court at this stage - petition dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINHA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON BLE MR. RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, JUDGE For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sourabh Dangi, Mr. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioners. 3. The petitioner, in Cr.M.P. No. 860/2024 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 all proceedings emanating there from. 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 in complete violation of the Order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and all consequential actions/proceedings emanating there from 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. To kindly call for the records of the statements recorded by the Respondent No. 2 under CCTV surveillance, as was mandated in terms of the Orders and directions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranted by the appropriate authority for registration of the Impugned FIR. 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. 6. The petitioner, in Cr.M.P. No. 964/2024 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 all proceedings emanating 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 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, and the details and records relating to the grant of sanction u/s 17A Prevention of Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner. 9. The petitioner, in Cr.M.P. No. 1286/2024 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 all proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. 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. 3. That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioners. 10. The petitioner, in Cr.M.P. No. 1288/2024 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 all proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PZO/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 fit proper may kindly be pleased to grant in favour of the Petitioner. 14. The petitioner, in Cr.M.P. No. 1287/2024 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 fit proper may kindly be pleased to grant in favour of the Petitioner. 15. Based on the relief prayed for by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service on 31.02.2024. Petitioner-Vidhu Gupta {in Cr.M.P. No. 964/2024} is a businessman and Managing Director of M/s. Prizm Holography Security Films Pvt. Ltd. Noida, which was granted a tender to supply holograms to the Excise Department of Chhattisgarh. Petitioner-Nitesh Purohit {in Cr.M.P. No. 1286/2024 and 1287/2024} is a businessman and owns a hotel at Raipur. Petitioner-Yash Purohit {in Cr.M.P. No. 1288/2024 and 1444/2024} is a the son of Nitesh Purohit. Petitioner-Arvind Singh {in Cr.M.P. No. 1467/2024} is an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg and resides at Raipur. 17. The admitted common facts in all these petitions are that a search and seizure was conducted by the Income Tax Department (for short, the ITD) on several premises owned by the petitioners and their family. Subsequent to the said raids, the ITD raid was conducted by the Income Tax Department and case bearing No. CT Case No. 1183/2022 was filed before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Acts) Central District, THC, Delhi, under Section 276(C), 277, 278, 278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, the ITA) read with Section 120-B, 191, 199, 200 and 204 of the IPC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIR bearing No. ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, alleging a fictitious liquor scam in the State of Chhattisgarh despite the fact that there was no underlying scheduled offence and thus, the liquor ECIR was completely illegal and untenable in law. On 29.03.2023, multiple search and seizure operations under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (for short, the PMLA) were conducted by the ED inter alia at the residential premises of Anil Tuteja in relation to the Liquor ECIR, despite the Liquor ECIR being untenable in law. The search operation at the residential premises of the petitioners started at 6 a.m. and continued for a period of nearly 30 hours, ending on the next day at 11:30 a.m. On 30.03.2023, Anil Tuteja was handed over summons dated 28.03.2023 and was escorted by the ED officers along with CRPF personnel to the ED Office, Raipur in their custody. During the entire period of search and questioning at ED Office, Anil Tuteja was kept in confinement and custody of the ED officers. He was questioned at the ED Office and released at 8:30 pm. On 06.04.2023, the learned ACMM returned the IT Complaint in Original for lack of territorial jurisdiction qua offences under Sections 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eking confirmation of the PAO No. 03/2023. On 04.07.2023, a prosecution complaint under Section 45 read with Section 44 of the PMLA was filed by the respondent-ED in relation to the ECIR/ RPZO/11/2022 against certain individuals. The petitioners were not named as accused in the same. However, on 11.07.2023, despite not having any jurisdiction to conduct any investigation in relation to the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, since there was no underlying scheduled offence, respondent-ED sent a letter to the Director General of Police, EOW / ACB, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in abject abuse of Section 66 of the PMLA, trying to create a scheduled offence for itself but the Supreme Court, vide order dated 18.07.2023, was pleased to further stay the hands of the ED in all manners in WP (Crl.) No. 153/2023 in as much as there was no predicate offence that the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 was premised upon. Liberty was granted to respondent-ED, to approach the Supreme Court in the event a stay is obtained qua the order dated 06.04.2023 21. Though no steps/action had been taken or urgency shown by the ITD in Crl. MC No. 2757/2023 until the Order dated 18.07.2023 was passed by the Supreme Court, immediately after the order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Anil Tuteja was summoned by the respondent-ACB on 10.08.2023 for appearance on 14.08.2023. Anil Tuteja duly appeared on the said date in compliance of the summons issued by respondent-ACB. On 13.08.2023, in another act of contempt of order dated 18.07.2023, and in an attempt to create its own jurisdiction, respondent-ED filed a Writ Petition bearing WP(Cr). No. 371/2023 before this Court seeking directions to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, the CBI) to investigate the offences alleged in the letter dated 11.07.2023 sent by the respondent-ED to the respondent-ACB. Notably, the officers of the respondent-ED had not placed the order dated 18.07.2023 on record before this Court and it does not even find mention in the body of the WP(Cr). No. 371/2023 filed by the respondent-ED, since they were aware that their acts were in contempt of the orders of the Supreme Court. This was the third act of contempt on part of respondent-ED. On 14.08.2023, Anil Tuteja sent a letter to the respondent-ACB for providing certain documents as sought for by the respondent-ACB. 22. By order dated 21.08.2023, the Supreme Court continued the interim protection granted vide order dated 07.08. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is suppressed in the Chhattisgarh FIR. This act of the officers of respondent-ED was yet another act of outright contempt of the order dated 18.07.2023 of this Court. All acts undertaken by the respondents pursuant thereto, including the registration of the impugned FIR, are an extension of this contemptuous act and are a nullity in law. A letter was sent by Anil Tuteja on 29.01.2024 to the various bureaucrats / Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh highlighting various legal infirmities and the mala fide manner in which various investigating agencies have been used to target him. Anil Tuteja also highlighted how the impugned FIR is a second FIR and the suppression of the preliminary enquiry conducted by the respondent-ACB and the DE neither of which found commission of any offence. 25. On 31.01.2024, the petitioners preferred an application bearing No. 26027/2024 in WP (Crl.) No. 153/2023 inter alia seeking protection in the impugned FIR. However, on 19.02.2024, the Supreme Court categorically notes in WP (Crl.) No. 153/2023 that the predicate offence for the registration of the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 was the IT complaint. On 22.02.2024, petitioner-Anil Tuteja sent a letter to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he intimation sent by ED dated 11.07.2023, on 13.07.2023 and thereafter marked that complaint to one Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Farhan Qureshi for preliminary verification of the contents of the complaint. After independent verification of the compliant, since a prima facie cognizable offence was disclosed, therefore under the statutory duty of registration of FIR, the present FIR was registered by EOW. From the perusal of FIR itself, which is already annexed with the petition as Annexure P/1, it is clear that FIR is not registered at the behest of ED. It was registered on the basis of preliminary verification and independent application of mind. 27. Section 154 of Cr.P.C postulates that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given to an officer in-charge of a Police Station is required to be reduced in writing by him. There is no discretion left with the Police Officer, not to register the FIR if the information received discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Reliance is placed on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in 2014 (2)SCC 1, wherein a Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... illicit country liquor wherein usage of hologram along with other methods was modus operandi (iii) payment of annual commission by distilleries for operation of cartel, which make out a cognizable offence under Sections 7 and 112 of the PC Act and section 420, 467, 471 and 120B of the IPC, therefore the ACB registered the FIR and there is no illegality in the same. 29. The investigation conducted by the ED, ITD and EOW are distinct from each other, because all the authorities are exercising different jurisdiction and investing different crimes. ITD can investigate the offences punishable under the ITA and no other authority / Investigating Agency has jurisdiction to investigate the matter for offences punishable under ITA. Similarly, the offences of money laundering can be investigated by the ED only and EOW has no jurisdiction to investigate the offence of money laundering. The EOW is investigating the matters pertaining to offences of IPC and PC Act. Therefore, even if the ECIR registered by the ED has been set-aside by the Supreme Court, this will not absolve the petitioners from the offences which they committed under the provisions of IPC and PC Act. In the various paragraphs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court passed in the T.T. Anthony v. State of Kerala reported in {(2001) 6 SCC 181} and Amit Bhai Anil Chandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others {(2013) 6 SCC 348), but the ratio laid down in both these cases are not applicable to the present case because the facts of the present case is different. Contention of the petitioners is that ED made a similar communication to the Noida Police on 28.07.2023 and on the basis of said communication, UP Police has registered offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 473, 484 and 120B of IPC. Since the allegation in both the FIRs, registered at Noida and EOW Chhattisgarh are same, therefore, the FIR registered by the Chhattisgarh Police is second FIR and is not permissible under the law. The chart below regarding comparison of FIR registered by the State of Uttar Pradesh (Police Station, Kasna, Greater NOIDA) and State of Chhattisgarh (P.S. Economic Offences Wing / Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur) which is as under: S.No. Particulars of the FIR FIR registered by the State of Uttar Pradesh FIR registered by the State of Chhattisgarh I. Number 196/2023 04/2024 II. Date of registration 30.07.2023 17.01.2024 III. Acts 420, 46 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of distillery owners, bottle suppliers agencies, duplicate hologram supplier Agencies and money collection agents also find mention. Various former Excise officers have been arraigned as accused owing to their involvement in illicit sale of liquor in the State. 32. The aforesaid chart shows that the FIR lodged by State of Chhattisgarh can be distinguished from the FIR lodged by State of Uttar Pradesh. The relevant judicial principle for determining whether an FIR is a 'second' FIR or not has been laid down in Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh Another {(2013) 6 SCC 384, paragraph 14 and 15} and further in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab {(2009) 1 SCC 441, at paragraph 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 57 and 58}, and Ram Lal Narang v. State {(1979) 2 SCC 322, paragraph 11}. 33. From the perusal of above chart, it is apparent that allegations and scope of investigation in both the FIR different from each other. ACB is conducting investigation regarding allegation of (a) charging of illegal commission, (b) sale of unaccounted illicit country liquor where in usage of hologram alongwith other method was a modus operandi, (c) payment of annual commission by distillers for ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er put up for approval before the competent authority for perusal and approval. A query was made by the EOW from the concerned Department regarding the enquiry and report dated 30.11.2023 and in response to the said query, the Additional Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax (Excise) vide his letter dated 12.04.2024 has categorically informed that the report was prepared by the then In-charge Secretary of the Department (who is a accused in the present FIR). The said report was never approved by the competent authority of the Government. Therefore, the said report has no legal value. The further contention of petitioner's that without seeking prior approval as mandated in Section 17A of the PC Act, the answering respondent are investigating the matter is factually incorrect. During the verification of complaint and after registration of FIR, EOW sought approval from the competent authority as mandated in Section 17A of the PC Act and only after receiving the approval from the competent authority, the ACB is conducting the investigation. 36. The investigation is at very initial stage and the entry made in the case diary and the communication made with the various Departments a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, the Court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences. It is also settled law that for the purpose of exercising its power under section 482 Cr.P.C to quash a FIR or a Complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se. With regard to the power of police to investigate and power of Courts to interfere during investigation, Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of of Maharashtra and others {(2021)19 SCC 401} has given some guidelines at paragraph 13.1 to 13.5 which is of utmost importance. From the bare reading of the said preposition of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court, it is clear that police has the statutory duty under the Cr.P.C to investigate into cognizable offence and the Court would not stop an investigation when it is in the very initial/preliminary stage. The Court should not go into the merits of allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation; it would be premature to pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us. Subsequently after informing the Supreme Court, the ED has recorded a new ECIR on the basis of the FIR by the Chhattisgarh police. In this ECIR the IO has summoned the IO of earlier ECIR and taken on record the evidence under Section 50 of the PMLA which were collected in addition to the evidences already collected. During investigation into the new ECIR, all pertinent documents, including statements recorded under section 50 of the PMLA were acquired from the IO of the last ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, Thandi Lal Meena, Assistant Director. Further, during the course of investigation, statements of Bhupendra Pal Singh Bhatia (Distiller), Uday Rao (associated with Chhattisgarh Distilleries Ltd.), Atul Kumar Singh (FL- 10A licensee), Sanjay Diwan (Cash handler for Anwar Dhebar), Yogesh Juneja (Representative of FL manufacturer), Anurag Dwivedi (Bottle supplier), N Srinivas Rao (Representative of FL manufacturer) and Amit Mittal (manpower supplier) were recorded under Section 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 199, 200 and 204 of IPC, 1860 against Anil Tuteja and others on 11.05.2022 before the Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. As per the Complaint, it gets revealed that, Anil Tuteja, Yash Tuteja and Ms. Saumya Chaurasia in collusion with each other took bribes, illegal commissions, unaccounted monies etc. in State of Chhattisgarh; the bribe collection work was done by Anwar Dhebar and his associates on their behalf. The accused were making the collections from Horticulture Department, Cement Industry, PWD and Excise Department and others. As per PC filed by ITD, a criminal syndicate comprising of high-level State Government officials, private persons and political executives of the State government was operating in the State of Chhattisgarh which was making illegal bribe collections by controlling the high-level management of important State Departments and State Public Sector Undertakings. As per PC filed by ITD, sale of liquor in Chhattisgarh was one of the major sources of illegal earning of the syndicate and Anil Tuteja along with Anwar Dhebar, Arunpati Tripathi, MD, CSMCL, and other associates of Anwar Dhebar namely Vikas Agarwal @ Subbu, Arvind Singh, Sanjay Diwan and Country Liquor Dist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ective, a change in the State government led to change of management of CSMCL and it became the tool in the hands of the syndicate which used it to enforce a parallel excise department. The syndicate comprises of senior bureaucrats of State, politicians and officials of excise department. In Feb, 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. It has further been revealed that 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 in the CSMCL run shops. Arunpati Tripathi was supported by Anwar Dhebar, and 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 responsibility of Arvind Singh. Thus, the syndicate took the shape. 44. It was difficult to extract cash bribes for foreign liquor makers in respect of IMFL and FL. Also, there was strong demand for good quality fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power and influence of Anil Tuteja. Thus, the real power/influence which allowed Anwar Dhebar to run this extortion syndicate was Anil Tuteja's undue and over-arching influence. Arunpati Tripathi in his statement recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, in ECIR/RPZO/11/2002 had admitted to all his wrong doings. He explained the processes and methods adopted by the syndicate. He revealed role of excise officers. He revealed Anil Tuteja's role as well as role of Anwar Dhebar. He also revealed share of proceeds of crime of all the involved. He revealed how he used to provide the monthly targets to Janardhan Singh Kaurav who used to manage daily operations involved in sale of Part-B liquor. He gave an account of why the concept of FL-10A license was invented. He also revealed the name and role of associate of Anwar Dhebar viz. Arvind Singh and Vikas Agrawal. 47. The investigation has further revealed that a complaint was made by the previous Hologram provider, M/s Montage Enterprises Pvt Ltd. to the then Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh. This complaint was scuttled and not properly dealt with due to the joint actions of Arunpati Tripathi, Niranjan Das, IAS, Anwar Dhebar and Anil Tutej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nwar Dhebar (8982780000) and Yash Tuteja (9755555559) revealed that the phone number of Anwar Dhebar is saved as Anwar Chacha. That, on 01.11.2019, Yash Tuteja had exchanged a note of Rs. 10 denomination and has provided a phone number of a person to Anwar Dhebar and had communicated him that this person will reach in an hour. In response to the same, Anwar Dhebar had also forwarded one note with denomination of Rs. 10 and had sent a forwarded message to Yash Tuteja saying Paid 10'. There are multiple such whatsapp chats between Yash Tuteja and Anwar Dhebar. Thus, it can be held that Yash Tuteja also used to receive funds from Anwar Dhebar, which he had acquired out of illegal commission extracted from liquor suppliers. The investigation conducted has established that Anwar Dhebar was collecting Anil Tuteja's share in Part-B liquor sales as well. Investigations have revealed that approximately Rs. 300 per case was the share of the duo (Anil Tuteja and Anwar Dhebar) out of the illegal sale proceeds of the unaccounted liquor. As per the Distillers 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 ille ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commission of offences under IT Act and 120B IPC of conspiracy for tax evasion and illegal movement of large-scale unaccounted funds. ED has done extensive investigation, and apart from corroborating the findings of the ITD, has discovered more predicate crimes which would fall under the purview of IPC offences like cheating, extortion, forgery, use of fabricated documents like Holograms, and offences under the PC Act. The PMLA. apart from empowering ED officers to investigate money laundering, also casts a duty on ED officers to disclose information about any new predicate crime discovered during its investigation. 50. It is submitted that as mandated by Sec 66(2) of PMLA, ED made the necessary disclosure vide letter dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-R-5) to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, explaining the entire modus operandi of the scam in the Excise department, including the role played by senior bureaucrats, namely, Shri Anil Tuteja, Retd IAS (retired recently) and Shri Arunpati Tripathi ITS, then Special Secretary Excise Department and Managing Director of M/s CSMCL. Acting upon the information, Chhattisgarh Police registered an FIR vide Crime No. 04/2024 at EOW/ACB (An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India SLP(Crl.) 4634 of 2014 has affirmed Section of 66(2) of PMLA. The Supreme Court in its judgment (Annexure-R-8) dated 08.04.2024 in WP (Cr) 153/2023, 208/2023 and 216/2023 ordered following:- 9. Hence, we pass the following order: (1) 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) in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 216/2023 is concerned, is hereby quashed. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed; (iv) There will be no order as to costs; and (v) Pending applications, including those seeking impleadment, are disposed of accordingly. 52. It is pertinent to note here that the Supreme Court only quashed the Prosecution Complaint dated 04.07.2023 in respect 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Noida a disclosure was made to UP Police as well on 28.07.2023. Thus, it is evident that the ED abided by all the directions of the Supreme Court. In view of the above, it is evident that the ED is duty bound to report any contravention of other laws found during investigation. Thus, in compliance of the above provisions findings of the investigation were shared with the law enforcement agencies i.e. UP Police and Chhattisgarh Police. The other law enforcement agencies 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 applicants that all the agencies are acting as proxy to ED with mala fide intent defies logic as well. The petitioners are even labelling the actions of the ITD as sponsored by the ED. 55. The ED investigations have revealed that the petitioner-Anil tuteja was the chief architect of the liquor scam. He was working at the highest level of the syndicate and looked after the support required from State administration to keep the system functioning. Many evidences were gathered associating the petitioner with Anwar Dhebar, the main perpetrator of the illegal collection. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Vinit Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation Others {2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3155}. 58. In support of their contentions, the ED would rely on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave, Rajuji Gambhiji v. State of Gujarat {1968 SCC OnLine SC 81, paragraph 5}, Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) {(1979) 2 SCC 322}, State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi {(2012) 9 SCC 685, paragraphs 3 and 12}. 59. Mr. Hossain, learned counsel for the respondent-ED would broadly submit that for recording of an ECIR it does not require any prior registration of FIR. The obligation to send information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA disclosing commission of an offence to a law enforcement agency while inquiring into the offence of money laundering has been very well recognized. Criminal law can be put into motion by any person. It is well settled that impropriety in obtaining the evidence will not affect its admissibility, if it is otherwise relevant and if an information discloses a cognizable offence, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequent remand orders that may be passed. 62. In support of his case, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement {2024 SCC OnLine 1703, paragraphs 9, 15, 18-21, 39-60, 81-83} in addition to what have been cited above. 63. With respect to Cr.M.P. No. 1098/2024, the ED has filed its return which is similar to that of in Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024. It has been submitted that the allegation of the petitioner that his arrest was illegal and contrary to Section 19 of the PMLA inasmuch as there could be no satisfaction of the IO that the petitioner is guilty of offence under Section 3 of PMLA Act. In this regard, it is submitted that all the due procedure and safeguards were followed in the arrest of the petitioner as per the provisions laid down in PMLA. During investigation into the new ECIR bearing No. ECIR/RPZO/04/2024, all pertinent documents, including statements recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, were acquired from the Investigating Officer 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /RPZO/11/2022 are illegal. In this regard, it is submitted that the Supreme Court only quashed the prosecution complaint dated 04.07.2023. Further, the Supreme Court did not quash the ECIR or any other proceedings emanating out of ECIR bearing No. ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. The petitioner contended that ACB FIR was already considered as schedule offence in ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. In this regard, it is submitted that ACB FIR vide 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 is never included as schedule offence in ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. ACB FIR is included as schedule offence in only ECIR/RPZO/04/2024. 65. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the underlying scheduled offence for the said ECIR itself is untenable in law and liable to be quashed. In this regard, it is submitted that ED shared the findings of the investigation in ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 under Section 66 (2) of PMLA with the EOW/ACB Chhattisgarh on 11.07.2023 i.e. prior to stay granted by the Supreme Court. Therefore the letter dated 11.07.2023 was issued in a complete 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 intim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and private persons Acting upon the information, EOW/ACB registered an FIR vide 04/2024. Similarly it has been also found during the investigation that M/s Prizm Holography Security Films Pvt. Ltd. supplied duplicate holograms to Chhattisgarh and other States of India. Accordingly information under Section 66(2) of PMLA was shared with UP Police due to the fact that Hologram manufacturing plant is situated at Noida which comes under the jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh Police. All the proceedings investigation including arrest of the petitioner herein, in the instant ECIR have been conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions laid down in PMLA. After the arrest, the petitioner was duly produced before the PMLA Court Raipur. The learned PMLA Court vetted the procedures of arrest carried out under Section 19 of PMLA and subsequently remanded the petitioner to ED custody after perusal of materials placed before him. 67. In Cr.M.P. No. 1098/2024, justifying the legality of custody by the ED, 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or animus of complainant or prosecution is not relevant, if based on allegations, as prima facie case is made out, reliance has been placed on State of Bihar v. JAC Saldanha {(1980) 1 SCC 554, paragraph 29}, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma {1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, paragraph 23}, State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kapatri {(1996) 1 SCC 542, paragraph 22}, Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P. {(2008) 8 SCC 781, paragraph 37}, Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P. {(2013) 10 SCC 591, paragraph 23 to 26}, Daxaben v. State of Gujarat {2022 SCC OnLine SC 936 paragraph 35} and Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P. {2022 SCC OnLine SC 484, paragraph 30}. 68. Counsel for the ED has prepared a chart showing the current status of the petitioners as to whether they are arrested by the ED or the ACB. The details are as under: Petitioner Cr.M.P. No. Whether accused named in ACB FIR Whether accused charge sheeted Whether complaint was filed Whether arrested by ACB Whether arrested by ED Date of Arrest 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 N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the State of Chhattisgarh namely Arunpati Tripathi (ITS), Niranjan Das (IAS) and Anil Tuteja (IAS) to favour M/s. Prizm Holography. It has further been alleged that this Company had supplied unaccounted duplicate holograms which were used for the illicit sale of illegal country liquor bottles from State-run shops in Chhattisgarh. Such act allowed the liquor syndicate to exploit the safety feature meant to authenticate liquor sales leading to fraudulent activities and financial losses to the State. Cr.M.P. No. 1286/2024 is filed by the petitioner-Nitesh Purohit. He is alleged to have been associated with Anwar Dhebar and further alleged to keep the proceeds of crime of Dhebar, at his Hotel Giriraj. Moreover, it is alleged that on the directions of Anwar Dhebar, he used to supply the aforesaid proceeds of crime to Anil Tuteja and other political persons, as and when required through 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Court to the complaint filed before the learned ACMM (Special Acts), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi being CT Case 1183/2022, wherein Anil Tuteja is the accused No. 1 and Anwar Dhbear is the accused No. 2. He further draws attention to paragraph 18 of the said complaint wherein the allegation against Anil Tuteja is that he facilitated for government approvals and participated in working of liquor mafia and collection of bribes on sale of accounted and unaccounted liquor in the State. 73. According to Mr. Agrawal, the Court at Delhi passed an order on 06.04.2023, where the Court has taken cognizance of the offence only under the IT Act. The learned Magistrate refused to take cognizance of the offences which were beyond his territorial jurisdiction but despite this order and despite the fact that this particular prosecution of IT Act had nothing other than 120-B IPC of criminal conspiracy 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 pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bar. In the aforesaid cases, the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the ED was also represented before the Supreme Court as the State of Chhattisgarh had filed an application for impleadment. The order dated 18.07.2023 reads as under: On hearing learned counsel for the parties it transpires that the complaints having been returned, the income tax authorities having taken that to a further court in appeal and there being any absence of stay, apart from the order already passed of no coercive action, the concerned respondent authorities must stay their hands in all manner. Ordered accordingly. On our query of learned ASG, we clarify that if the stay is obtained qua that order, it is open to the resondents to move this Court for obtaining appropriate order. Adjourned. 76. According to Mr. Agrawal, the Supreme Court was conscious of the fact that the petitioner was 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 allegat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been respondent/ED. He further submits that State of Chhattisgarh was aware of all what the Hon ble Supreme Court has said as it was represented on all three dates. On 17.01.2024, when the dispensation changed, that letter of 11.07.2023 despite the three orders of the Supreme Court, the State of Chhattisgarh registered an FIR against the petitioners even though there was no material on record to register the FIR. The FIR was registered on 17.01.2024 (Annexure P/1). He draws attention to column No. 6 of the FIR with regard to the complainant who is Mr. Hemant, Deputy Director, ED, Raipur through Mr. Farhan Kureshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Economnic Offence Investigation Bureau, Raipur. The entire confidential report of the ED dated 11.07.2023 has been reproduced in the FIR No. 4/2024 wherein 70 named and other unnamed persons 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 81. According to Mr. Agrawal the FIR of the State of Chhattisgarh by itself is the product of an information given by the ED under Section 66 from ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 which is without jurisdiction. It is also in the teeth of order dated 18.07.2023. Hence, if the registration of the FIR is illegal, can an investigation continue? The order of the Supreme Court dated 18.07.2023 was in operation on 17.01.2024 and hence, the said FIR could not have been registered. Since the PAO has been quashed and the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 prosecution complaint was also quashed, registering FIR No. 4/2024 on the basis of the same is illegal. Whenever the 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2023 passed by this Court in these two Writ Petitions to enable the petitioners to take recourse to appropraite proceedings before the appropriate Court. 12. By keeping the rights and contentions of the parties open, we direct that the interim order dated 7th August 2023 passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 153/2023 and 208/2023 shall continue to operate for three weeks from today. 82. According to Mr. Agrawal, it is in these three weeks that the petitioners approached the Hon ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for quashing of the FIR registered by the State of Chhattisgarh as well as Uttar Pradesh. However, the Supreme Court observed that the remedy of the petitioner was to file appropriate proceedings before the concerned High Courts. By granting liberty to the petitioner to do so, 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 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns outlined in the FIR registered by ACB/EOW, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Based upon this Prosecution Complaint, an ECIR bearing No. RPZO/11/2022 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffice. 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 ACB 4/2024 FIR is an investigation which derives from ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. The petitioner was arrested and released on bail which has given rise to ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 Every time a Court of law quashes a false complaint or grants interim relief, another case is being registered. On the same material a prosecution case is filed accusing Anil Tuteja but not made him an accused. Other similarly situated persons have been arrested in ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 if the ED is not stopped. 88. On the issue of ACB registering FIRs contrary to the Supreme Court' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld 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 the ED, it was informed that no custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required at that stage as the charge sheet had been file in that case. The said complaint case has been quashed because of absence of predicate offence. He would draw attention of this Court to Annexure P/24 which is ECIR/RPZO/04/2024, wherein the under signed is an Assistant Director, PMLA, Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur Zonal Office, Raipur. This Department has already filed an application under Section 267 Cr.P.C. for production of four accused persons namely Anwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 xxx xxx Arunpati Tripathi : He implemented all the decisions of the syndicate. From increasing the landing cost of PART-A liquor, tenders to Manpower suppliers, Hologram suppliers, awarding of tenders to compliant partners, procurement from Distillers, concept of FL-10A license etc. all were executed by him ... 92. There is specific mention of ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 in which they earlier arrested the petitioner-Arunpati Tripathi which has been quashed. There is nothing new is on record for registration of the offence against the petitioner. Arunpati Tripathi was arrested in ACB case and is presently in custody of UP Police. Mr. Shrivastava further submits that the crux of the matter is that there was fake hologram which inflated the profit which was distributed as Part-A, Part-B and Part-C as detailed in the foregoing paragraphs. There cannot be two FIRs on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complaint was quashed by the Supreme Court in respect of petitioner-Anwar Dhebar and Arunpati Tripathi also. 94. Niranjan Das was the Secretary Excise. He was not named in the complaint of the ITD. The FIR which has been registered, in the letter also the name of the petitioner was not there. In the entire letter whatever the allegation has been levelled is against Anil Tuteja, Arunpati Tripathi and Anwar Dhebar. There is nothing to show that there is any allegation against the Departmental Officer or the petitioner. There is nothing in their reply against the petitioner that on their investigation they found out what. Their entire is with respect to Anil Tuteja and there is nothing within 7 months, the name of the petitioner was not there in the letter given to the ED. Name of 70 persons have been registered in the FIR and the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 6. It is alleged that during the tenure of Niranjan Das, FL-10A licence was brought into force. The FIR registered at UP also contains the name of the petitioner. He being an officer of the State was bound to comply with the directions of the State for implementation of any of the State's policy. 95. Mr. Aman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf has taken cognizance of this order on two occasion. The first pointedly in WP. (Cr.) No. 141/2024 and it was filed by Mr. Anil Tuteja. The investigating agencies have become favorite target of attack by all dishonest accused and has become little personal now. The grounds in WPCr. No. 141/2024 are the same as before this Court in these petitions. The prayers are at page 1258 of Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024. The grounds have been summarized in a title starting from page 1238 of the petition. The title are as under: I. The impugned FIRs have been registered in outright violation of the orders of this Hon ble Court. II. The material on the basis of which impugned FIRs have been registered in inadmissible in law. III. Two FIRs in relation to the same transaction are unsustainable in law and are liable to be quashed. IV. Respondent No. 3 has suppressed the earlier preliminary enquiry conducted by the same Investigating Officer who has registered the Chhattisgarh FIR. V. The Departmental Enquiry on the same allegations conducted by the jurisdictional Department i.e. Commercial Tax (Excise) Department, State of Chhattisgarh, did not find any illegality in relation to the same transactions. IV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the Supreme Court dated 08.04.2024 in WPCr No. 153/2023, alongwith WPCr. No. 208/2023, 216/2023 and 217/2023, states as under: 1. Taken up for final hearing as notice has already been issued on the petitions. In substance, in these Writ Petitions, the only challenge that survives is to the complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, the PMLA ) concerning ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. 2. It is not in dispute that the alleged scheduled offences on which the complaint is based are under various sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Sections 120B, 191, 199, 200 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC ). It is also not in dispute that except for Section 120B of the IPC, none of the offences are scheduled offences within the meaning of clause (y) of sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the PMLA. This Court, in the decision in the case of Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement {2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586}, recorded its conclusions in paragraph 31, which reads thus: CONCLUSIONS 31. While we reject the first and second submissions canvassed by the learned senior counsel appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is not made out. The reason is that existence of the proceeds of crime is a condition precedent for the applicability of Section 3 of the PMLA. 5. There is some controversy about whether the Special Court has taken cognizance on the basis of the complaint. The learned ASG, on instructions, states that cognizance has not been taken. The learned ASG submits that as the cognizance is not taken, this Court should not entertain the prayer for quashing the complaint. 6. The only mode by which the cognizance of the offence under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, can be taken by the Special Court is upon a complaint filed by the Authority authorized on this behalf. Section 46 of PMLA provides that the provisions of the Cr.PC (including the provisions as to bails or bonds) shall apply to proceedings before a Special Court and for the purposes of the Cr.PC provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Sessions. However, sub-section (1) of Section 46 starts with the words save as otherwise provided in this Act. Considering the provisions of Section 46(1) of the PMLA, save as otherwise provided in the PMLA, the provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to costs; and (v) Pending applications, including those seeking impleadment, are disposed of accordingly. 10. At this stage, the learned ASG stated that, based on another First Information Report, which, according to him, involves a scheduled offence, criminal proceedings under the PMLA are likely to be initiated against the petitioners. It is not necessary for us to go into the issue of the legality and validity of the proceedings that are likely to be initiated at this stage. Therefore, all the contentions in that regard are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. 11. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos.153/2023 and 208/2023 seeks continuation of the interim order dated 7th August 2023 passed by this Court in these two Writ Petitions to enable the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court. 12. By keeping the rights and contention of the parties open, we direct that the interim order dated 7th August 2023 passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos.153/2023 and 208/2023 shall continue to operate for three weeks from today. 101. If there was an act of flouting the Supreme Court's or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been read by the petitioners. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme court on Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave, Rajuji Gambhiji (supra) {paragraph 5} to contend that even if the first investigation was not in accordance with law, it is in no sense non est. The case of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar Others (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case and is distinguishable on facts. Further, an argument has been raised by the counsel for the petitioners that these are the cases where there are two FIRs on the same issue. In this regard, it is submitted that the FIRs registered in the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh are not identical. There is no dispute that if two FIRs are identical, then the second one has to go or it shall merge with the first one. 104. According to Mr. Jethmalani, the canvas of the Chhattisgarh conspiracy is much larger than the conspiracy in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In Noida, the bogus holograms were manufactured which authenticated a bottle for sale of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh. The State has been deprived of the excise duty in the liquor sold in fake bottles inasmuch as the holograms were forged. Consequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #2350;ेंट आदेश कमांक 03/2023 संलग्न किया गया है। प्रवर्तन निदेशालय के उपरोक्त जानकारी मुख्यतः शासकीय अधिकारियों के विरूद्ध पद के दुरूपयोग एवं आसमानुपातिक संपत्ति अर्जित करने का आरोप की है। पद् का दुरूपयोग एवं असë ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2352;ायपुर के साथ सिंडिकेट के रूप में कार्य कर श्री अनवर ढेबर के सहयोगी श्री विकास अग्रवाल उर्फ सुब्बु, श्री अरविंद सिंह, श्री संजय दिवान, देशी शराब आसवनी मालिक तथा विभिन्न जिलों एवं मुख्यालाय में पदस्थ आबकारी ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... अटैच भी किया गया है 106. Mr. Jethmalani would lastly submit that the action of the State/ACB is strictly in accordance with law and as such, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in these petitions and they deserve to be dismissed. 107. Mr. Zoheb Hossain alongwith Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ED would submit that the petitioners have two primary grounds on the action of the ED is under challenge. Firstly, the petitioners rely on the decision of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar Others (supra) that the earlier ECIR/RPZO/ 11/2022 was void ab initio, therefore every thing that followed from thereon has to be wiped out. If the foundation goes the superstructure falls. In response to the said proposition, Mr. Zoheb would submit that ECIR is an internal reference document as laid down in Vijay Madan Lal (supra). It is not akin to an FIR. It is not even a statutory document. Even without recording an ECIR, ED can initiate inquiry collect materials. It also says that without registration of a scheduled offence also i.e. without an FIR also an ECIR can surviv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment in Pooran Mal (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under: 24. So far as India is concerned its law of evidence is modelled on the rules of evidence which prevailed in English Law, and Courts in India and in England have consistently refused to exclude relevant evidence merely on the ground that it is obtained by illegal search or seizure. In Barindra Kumar Ghose and others v. Emperor {ILR 37 Cal 467 : 7 IC 359} the learned Chief Justice Sir Lawrence Jenkins says at page 500: Mr. Das has attacked the searches and has urged that, even if there was jurisdiction to direct the issue of search warrants, as I hold there was, still the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code have been completely disregarded. On this assumption he has contended that the evidence discovered by the searches is not admissible, but to this view I cannot accede. For without in any way countenancing disregard of the provisions prescribed by the Code, I hold that what would otherwise be relevant does not become irrelevant because it was discovered in the course of search in which those provisions were disregarded. As Jimutavahana with his shrewd common sense observes a fact cannot be altered by 100 texts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed officials under this Act, though couched as investigation in real sense, is to undertake inquiry to ascertain relevant facts to facilitate initiation of or pursuing with an action regarding proceeds of crime, if the situation so warrants and for being presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is a different matter that the information and evidence so collated during the inquiry made, may disclose commission of offence of money-laundering and the involvement of the person, who has been summoned for making disclosures pursuant to the summons issued by the Authority. At this stage, there would be no formal document indicative of likelihood of involvement of such person as an accused of offence of money- laundering. If the statement made by him reveals the offence of money-laundering or the existence of proceeds of crime, that becomes actionable under the Act itself. To put it differently, at the stage of recording of statement for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property being proceeds of crime is, in that sense, not an investigation for prosecution as such; and in any case, there would be no formal accusation against the noticee. Such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We heard the above two applications on 18th October 2022. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that when the latter was under the protective cover of the order passed by this Court, his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate was illegal, being in violation of that Order of this Court. His submission has been that the protection granted by this Court was in relation to a particular offence and the Enforcement Directorate had arrested him in relation to the same offence, which was unwarranted. 5. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appeared in these matters on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate and his submission is that in the Writ Petitions, out of which the present proceedings arise, Enforcement Directorate was not a party. The Order of this Court, giving interim protection to the petitioner from coercive steps, was based in the backdrop of the direction of the Single Judge issued on CBI to investigate into the allegations of irregularities pertaining to the recruitment of primary teachers and observations of the Single Judge that CBI could interrogate the petitioner and also arrest him in case of his non cooperation. His case is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t paragraphs 34, 38 to 45. In Pankaj Bansal with respect to illegal detention, observations have been made by the Supreme Court at paragraphs 21, 25 and 27. In the said case also, significantly the second ECIR was recorded after preliminary investigations but in the ED s reply therein, it was not clear as to when the ED s IO had the time to properly inquire into the matter so as to form a clear opinion about the appellant s involvement in an offence under the Act of 2002, warranting their arrest within 24 hours. 115. In rebuttal, Mr. Zoheb would point out paragraph 55 of the decision in Baldev Singh (supra) which reads as under: 55. We, therefore, hold that an illicit article seized from the person of an accused, during search conducted in violation of the safeguards provided in Section 50 of the Act, cannot by itself be used as admissible evidence of proof of unlawful possession of the contraband on the accused. Any other material/article recovered during that search may, however, be relied upon by the prosecution in other/independent proceedings against an accused notwithstanding the recovery of the material during an illegal search and its admissibility would depend upon the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession, reason to believe (that reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest. (2) The Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer shall, immediately after arrest of such person under sub-section (1), forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession, referred to in that sub-section, to the Adjudicating Authority, in a sealed envelope, in the manner, as may be prescribed and such Adjudicating Authority shall keep such order and material for such period, as may be prescribed. (3) Every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall, within twenty-four hours, be taken to a Special Court or Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction: Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Special Court or Magistrates Court. 118. Section 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commission, sale of unaccounted illicit country liquor wherein usage of hologram alongwith other methods was a modus operandi and payment of annual commission by distillers for operation of cartel, which are not within the scope of investigation of the FIR registered by the State of Uttar Pradesh. 122. In Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary (supra) at paragraphs 456 to 459 the Supreme Court had the following to observe: ECIR VIS- -VIS FIR 456. As per the procedure prescribed by the 1973 Code, the officer in-charge of a police station is under an obligation to record the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, in terms of Section 154 of the 1973 Code. There is no corresponding provision in the 2002 Act requiring registration of offence of money-laundering. As noticed earlier, the mechanism for proceeding against the property being proceeds of crime predicated in the 2002 Act is a sui generis procedure. No comparison can be drawn between the mechanism regarding prevention, investigation or trial in connection with the scheduled offence governed by the provisions of the 1973 Code. In the scheme of 2002 Act upon identification of existence of property being proceeds of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 3 of the 2002 Act is fully governed by the provisions of the 2002 Act itself. To wit, regarding survey, searches, seizures, issuing summons, recording of statements of concerned persons and calling upon production of documents, inquiry/investigation, arrest of persons involved in the offence of money-laundering including bail and attachment, confiscation and vesting of property being proceeds of crime. Indeed, after arrest, the manner of dealing with such offender involved in offence of money-laundering would then be governed by the provisions of the 1973 Code - as there are no inconsistent provisions in the 2002 Act in regard to production of the arrested person before the jurisdictional Magistrate within twenty-four hours and also filing of the complaint before the Special Court within the statutory period prescribed in the 1973 Code for filing of police report, if not released on bail before expiry thereof. 457. Suffice it to observe that being a special legislation providing for special mechanism regarding inquiry/ investigation of offence of money-laundering, analogy cannot be drawn from the provisions of 1973 Code, in regard to registration of offence of money-laundering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry/investigation required to proceed against the property being proceeds of crime including to the person involved in the process or activity connected therewith, may have deleterious impact on the final outcome of the inquiry/investigation. So long as the person has been informed about grounds of his arrest that is sufficient compliance of mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Moreover, the arrested person before being produced before the Special Court within twenty-four hours or for that purposes of remand on each occasion, the Court is free to look into the relevant records made available by the Authority about the involvement of the arrested person in the offence of money-laundering. In any case, upon filing of the complaint before the statutory period provided in 1973 Code, after arrest, the person would get all relevant materials forming part of the complaint filed by the Authority under Section 44(1)(b) of the 2002 Act before the Special Court. 459. Viewed thus, supply of ECIR in every case to person concerned is not mandatory. From the submissions made across the Bar, it is noticed that in some cases ED has furnished copy of ECIR to the person before filing of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anized crime where, interference by the Court at the stage of investigation would definitely have an adverse impact on the investigation. By use of forged holograms, the State has been deprived of revenue which could have been collected by the State. The FIR registered by the State of Uttar Pradesh though was prior in time i.e. on 30.07.2023, however, the stretch of crime therein is not as vast as that has been registered in the State of Chhattisgarh. In the FIR registered by the Kasna Police Station, there are only five accused namely Arunpati Tripathi (ITS), Niranjan Das (IAS), Anil Tuteja (IAS), Anwar Dhebar who is a businessman at Raipur and Vidhu Gupta, who is the Managing Director of M/s. Prizm Holography Security Films Pvt. Ltd. The relevant part of the said FIR reads as under: प्रवर्तन निदेशालय भारत सरकार क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय A.1 ब्लॉक, द्वितीय तय ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial number of Hologram which has already been printed and supplied to the Excise Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh. The duplicate holograms containing the serial numbers provided by Shri Arun Pati Tripathi were manufactured in our Noida unit and then transported by road to Chhattisgarh. I used to provide the contact details of transporter to Shri Arun Pati Tripathi and associates of Shri Arun Pati Tripathi collected these duplicate holograms in 5. In the allotment of tender to M/s PHFS, major role was played by the Mr Arunpati Tripathi Special Secretary Excise and Niranjan Das IAS, Secretary Excise Department. In his statement dated 19.04.2023 recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002, Mr Arunpati Tripathi has admitted that duplicate holograms were indeed supplied by M/s PHSF to the syndicate. Relevant portion of his statement is reproduced herein below Source of Hologram: The duplicate holograms were supplied by M/s Prizm Holography Films Securities Pvt. Ltd which was also supplying genuine hologram to Excise Department. These holograms were being supplied to distillers by Amit Singh, nephew of Arvind Singh and one of his associate Deepak. 6. M/s Prizm Holography Security Films Pvt Ltd was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Niranjan Das and others. The act of printing duplicate Holograms to use them as original and cheat the government consumers has occurred at Noida. 12. This information is being shared with your office for further necessary action at your end. 13. This is issued with the approval of competent authority Yours faithfully, sd sign. English (HEMANT) (DEPUTY DIRECTOR) उप निदेशक/ Deputy Director प्रवर्तन निदेशालय; Directorate of Enforcement रायपुर क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय; Raipur Zonal Office Encl: 1. ITD panchnama dated 03.02.2021 leading to seizure of duplicate hologram from premises belonging to M/s PHSF. 2. Statement dated 02.04.2023 and 03.04.2023 of Mr. liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh during this period and cause a massive loss of Rs 1200 Crore to the State Exchequer and illegal gain to the accused persons including M/s PHSF. It is further submitted that ED has filed its first prosecution complaint in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bottle Maker, transporter, manpower management and District Excise Officials. Annual Commission paid by Distillers for allowing them to operate a cartel and divide the market share among themselves in the State of Chhattisgarh. The role of Anil Tuteja, Anwar Dhebar, Arunpati Tripath and other unnamed senior officers of Excise Department and local District Level Excise Officers have also been mentioned. The said offence has different facets including multiple sections of the PC Act, IPC and PMLA. There are various whatsapp chats and calls in the form of electronic evidence which prima facie goes to suggest the involvement of the petitioners herein in the aforesaid organized crime. 125. The case laws referred in the foregoing paragraphs clearly establishes that if an information discloses a cognizable offence, the FIR is mandatory required to be registered. The offence of money laundering, which is one of the offence involved in the present cases, is an independent offence as has been held in Manik Bhattacharya (supra), Aditya Tripathi (supra), Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) and Pavana Dibbur. (supra). As it has been well recognized by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. 128. The main responsibilities of Excise Departments are to regulate the supply of liquor, ensure quality liquor to users to prevent hooch tragedies and to earn revenue for the State. But the criminal syndicate led by Anwar Dhebar and Anil Tuteja has turned these objectives upside down. They have systematically altered liquor policy as per their whims and fancies and extorted maximum personal benefit for themselves. The excise policy in the State of Chhattisgarh was amended in the year 2017 and CSMCL in February, 2017, was thus created with the responsibility to exclusively retail liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh through its stores. The CSMCL was established with the vision to provide genuine liquor, to stop sale of illegal Liquor, to provide liquor on MRP. It established its own stores to retail the liquor/ beer/wine/country liquor after procuring liquor from manufacturers directly. 129. With the advent of new policy in the State, CSMCL was incorporated, and it established its own stores to retail the liquor/beer/wine/country liquor after procuring country liquor directly from manufacturers and IMFL was procured from suppliers and stored in warehouses of another State Publ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Vikas Agarwal (Associate of Anwar Dhebar). The awarding of contracts to willing partners ensured a stronghold of the syndicate on all the wings of liquor business, namely: Liquor Manufacturers (a monopoly cartel of 3 Distillers), Hologram Company, State run shops and the manpower company, Bottle makers, Cash collection agency, State Excise Officials. 131. As per the investigation conducted by the ED, deputing a compliant MD at CSMCL was the first step in institutionalizing PART-A bribe/ commission. As part of the conspiracy, MD CSMCL would only procure liquor from preferred manufacturers while side-lining the ones not paying commission. The collection of Part-A commission was thus assured. Arunpati Tripathi was found to be giving detailed month-wise, supplier-wise excel sheets of the procurement to Anwar Dhebar to ensure that PART-A commission was collected without fail from the Distillers Suppliers. in order to decide the quantum of commission on sale of country liquor, a meeting was called by Anwar Dhebar in March, 2019 which was attended by Promoter/Director of the Country liquor manufacturers viz M/s Chhattisgarh Distilleries Limited, M/s Bhatia Wines Merchants Private Lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d has revealed that the transportation of liquor from distillers to shops and supply of duplicate holograms to distillers was looked after by Arvind Singh. Monthly targets were set by Anwar Dhebar who used to communicate to MD CSMCL either directly or through Arvind Singh. Then senior Excise officials used to coordinate with Distillers, Hologram Makers, Bottle Makers, Transporters and local Excise Officials to ensure that the entire system ran flawlessly and no one interferes in this illegal State-run racket. The target of kachcha liquor sale was flexible and, on an average, around 200 trucks carrying 800 cases of country liquor per month were supplied by the distillers to the syndicate during the financial year 2019- 20. This number of Part-B trucks rose to around 400 trucks per month in 2022-23. Country Liquor Distillers also favoured this type of corruption, as it was yielding them better profit margin, saving them taxes, saving them PART- A commission, and saving them cost overheads of generating cash to pay PART-A bribes. Sale of unaccounted liquor was highly profitable for the syndicate. Whereas in case of PART-A sale of Country Liquor, they were getting commission of around ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... example, wife of Arvind Singh is the partner in M/s Adip Empire is the official supplier of glass bottles to M/s. Welcome Distillers. 135. The syndicate apart from collecting commission on sale of accounted liquor (Part-A) and sale of unaccounted kachcha illegal liquor (Part-B) also charged quid pro quo bribes from main distillers so that they can form a cartel and divide the entire market share among themselves. This was known as PART-C earnings. This was an annual commission which was paid by the main distillers for getting distillery license and getting fixed share in the market purchase of CSMCL. Kedia Group got 52% share, Bhatia Group got 30% and Welcome Group got 18% share. ED investigation has established that approximately Rs. 2161 Crores of corruption money has been generated by this syndicate. ED has recorded statements of numerous individuals and has managed to piece together the evidence of large-scale illegal collection and money laundering by this network. The ED investigation has established that in the Excise Department of State of Chhattisgarh massive unprecedented corruption was done between 2019 to 2023 in multiple ways. The total extent of extortion is coming to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll 24.04.2024 and the accused was directed to be produced on the said date at 11:00 a.m. 138. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/ED that there is a clear cut distinction between custody, detention and arrest which has been discussed in detail by the Supreme Court in Sundeep Kumar Bafna (supra) at paragraphs 9 to 16. 139. From perusal of the materials available on record, we do not find that the arrest and the subsequent order of remand passed by the learned Magistrate or the Special Judge, is violative of any of the provisions of the PMLA Act or the Cr.P.C. 140. According to the petitioners, the ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 is a second ECIR in relation to the same alleged transaction and has been registered on the basis of the same underlying schedule offence for a second time and all proceedings and investigation in relation to the same are thus liable to be quashed. ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 was registered on the basis of prosecution complaint filed by the ITD before learned ACMM Court Tis Hazari New Delhi. However, the new ECIR bearing No ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 has been recorded on the basis of FIR bearing No. 04/2024 registered by ACB/EOW Raipur. In first ECIR, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed out in that ECIR are still live in nature such as ECIR, statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, other evidence etc. Even if there is an allegation that the letter under section 66(2) is without authority, it cannot be said that the FIR recorded on the basis of Section 66(2) letter can be quashed at all. If information discloses a cognizable offence, the FIR is mandatorily required to be registered as has been laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra). 142. The contention of the petitioners that the DE on the same allegations conducted by the jurisdictional Department i.e. Commercial Tax (Excise) Department did not find any illegality, also deserve to be rejected as in the foregoing paragraphs, as discussed, the enquiry was done by the person who himself is an accused in this case. 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. It has not been discussed as to the prosecution complaint filed by the ED which was already filed before the Special Court. The findings of inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... light of the settled law of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject [Indian Rly Construction Co. Lid v. Ajay Kumar, (2003) 4 SCC 379. Ajit Kumar Nag Indian Oil Corpn Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 764, Normal Jeet Singh Hoon v. Irtiza Hussain, (2010) 14 SCC 564. Ratnagiri Gas and Power (P) Ltd v RDS Projects Lad.. (2013) 1 SCC 524), no allegation of mala fide cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a reasonable apprehension and therefore, this Court will refram from commenting further on the said issue The assertion that certain questions were put in a roving and fishing manner to the Petitioners cannot be a ground to allege malafides as it is settled law that investigation is the sole prerogative of the investigating agency as per a long line of judgments starting from King-Emperor Vs Khwaja Nazir Ahmad 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29. 38. Further, so far as the allegations of malafides are concerned, the same has no place in criminal investigations. Secondly, it is settled law that allegations of malafides are easy to be made than to actually make out The allegations of malafides need to be corroborated wah concise statements of material facts which inspire confidence. Thirdly, apart from non-app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counter claim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted. 148. In Monika Bedi v. State of Andhra Pradesh {(2011) 1 SCC 284}, the Supreme Court, relying on the decision in State of Bombay v. S.L.Apte {AIR 1961 SC 578} has thus to say: 29. It is thus clear that the same facts may give rise to different prosecutions and punishment and in such an event, the protection afforded by Article 20(2) is not available. It is settled law that a person can be prosecuted and punished more than once even on substantially same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
