9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondly, final verdict, i.e. double jeopardy protection applies once there is final judgement (either conviction or acquittal). The purpose is to ensure fairness and prevent abuse of law. In the present case, where the present first information report has been lodged for the offence under IPC and the charge sheet has been submitted after investigation collecting material from the GST department also, the complaint under CGST Act does not involve the same offence, therefore, the argument as placed by learned counsel for the applicant has no legs to stands. In the facts of the present case, the involvement, knowledge and actions following the deposit determines that the applicant was involved in respect of transactions which he had with fake GST firms which were registered by using PAN Card and Aadhaar Card of the informant - the illegal profits as made by the fake GST firms registered on the basis of PAN and Aadhaar Cards of the informant, were made to appear legitimate by moving money / funds to the Bank accounts of others, may be company or firm or relatives' accounts. The present case relates to economic offences. Such offence like large scale fraud, money laundering and corrup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice Station Noida Sector-20, Gautam Buddh Nagar, the informant Sumit Yadav came to know about registration of fake firm, Yadav Traders, against his PAN Card No. AHFPX9874Q and the address is recorded as Ground Floor JL No. 219 Khatian No. 2275 dag no. 1835, Sahibganj Road, near Sahibganj, High School, Kharimala, Khagrabari Cooch behar West Bengal 736101. Said Firm is got registered fallaciously against informant s PAN Card AHFPX9874Q. It has been registered illegally by some unknown miscreants. Informant has mentioned his permanent address as K-11 Gyan Sarowar Colony, Ramghat Road, Aligarh, and present address as J-41, Senior Citizen Society, Greater Noida. Thus, the FIR has been lodged. 3. As per prosecution version in FIR/Case Crime No. 203/2023, dated 04.05.2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20, Gautam Buddh Nagar, the informant Saurabh Dwivedi is a journalist and works as an Editor of the Lallantop internet news portal and India Today Hindi Magazine. He came across two GST registrations viz. 03AUSPD7067N1Z3 and 27AUSPD7067N1ZT obtained in the State of Punjab and Maharashtra respectively w.e.f. 20.03.2023. These have been applied on inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id cases. Once the applicant has been enlarged on bail in the offence under GST Act where the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 (Central Goods and Services Tax Act) are applicable, he cannot be prosecuted for the same offence in the present case as it will amount to double jeopardy. 6. He further submits that for the offence under the GST Act where provisions of CGST Act are applicable, the proceedings have been drawn on the basis of money transactions between M/s Good Health Industries Private Ltd. and M/s AKS Traders, which in turn transacted to M/s YOYO Traders. 7. Elaborating his argument, he submits that it has been recorded by the Investigating Officer that he has received information from DGGI Meerut, Zonal Unit, Ghaziabad regarding prosecution of Sanjay Dhingra conducted by DGGI, Meerut under the provisions of the GST Act, 2017. The Investigating Officer reduced into writing the complaint dated 04.08.2023 filed by DGGI, Meerut in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut bearing Case No. 1942 of 2023. In the said complaint it was alleged that M/s Good Health Industries Pvt. Ltd., the Company where the applicant - Sanjay Dhingra, works as a consultant, had transactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department. He has drawn attention of the Court to a bail order dated 03.08.2023 passed in the case of Sanjay Dhingra i.e. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32951 of 2023 (Sanjay Dhingra v. Union of India and another) . 13. Mrs. Kirti Singh, learned AGA appearing for the State submits that nucleus of the entire issue is that there is a Press Reporter. He says that his PAN Card was misused and on the basis of his PAN Card two Firms were registered. Thus, offence under the provisions of IPC stands committed. On the basis of these fake firms, a transaction is being done with the Company, of which Sanjay Dhingra is a Director. Each and every transaction is separate set, for this they have to submit separate return. Applicant has committed offence of separate nature, so GST Rule will not apply, but it will not take them out of the offence that has been committed under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) . 14. Following arguments have been advanced on behalf of the State to strengthen its submissions: A. She submits, insofar as involvement of the applicant in the offence is concerned, that they formed a syndicate and their modus operandi configures four segments: (i) assignment of job of col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of GST Act, the informant levelled allegations of misusing his Aadhaar and PAN Cards for GST registration, thus, FIR has rightly been lodged under the relevant Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. G. With regard to arguments of learned counsel for the applicant that once chargesheet has been submitted in economic offence, the person should be released, learned AAG contends that each economic offence has distinct parameter while consideration of bail, which can be summarized in three counts: (i) Gravity of Economic Offence, (ii) Impact, if the person is released on bail or the person is detained, and (iii) Interest of the Nation. It is argued that economic offence is not possible at the hands of one person and the present case is an organized crime where crores of government money has been siphoned by registration of fake firms in which all accused persons are connected in one or the other way. H. With respect to consideration of bail in offences related to GST, learned AAG has placed reliance on various judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of Yogesh Jagish Kanodia v. State of Maharashtra and another, [(2021) 90 GSTR 402 : 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 154 : (2021) 2 Bom CR (Cri) 112] Ajay K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the FIR were also found. On the pointing out of Ashwani Pandey and Yaseen Sheikh, the investigating team reached at Madhu Vihar office, where accused Deepak Murjhani, Akash Saini, Vishal Singh, Atul Sengar, Rajiv, Vineet were found and arrested along with huge amount of money and documents relating to fake GST firms. Copy of recovery memo was duly received by the accused persons putting their signatures thereon. The arrested accused persons, in their confessional statements, disclosed names of Anchit Goyal, Pradeep Goyal, Archit Goyal, Mayur alias Mani Nagpal, Charu Nagpal and Deepak Singhal. Consequently, Section 120B IPC was added. (iv) C.D. Parcha No. 11 shows supplementary statement of accused persons in judicial custody, who said to assist in recovery of incriminating articles from concerned place and persons. (v) C.D. Parcha No. 14 contains majid-statement of Yaseen Sheikh, Rajiv Jindal and Deepak Murjhani, who disclosed names of Rajiv Maheshwari and Rahul Gupta. In the same parcha the aforesaid accused persons including accused Ashwani Pandey, Vishal and Akash, all of them disclosed the complicity of Rajiv Maheshwari, Rahul Gupta, Gaurav Singhal and Gurmeet Singh Batra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich documents relating to A.K. Enterprises were found. Two separate recovery memos were given to the arrested accused persons which bear their signatures. Statements of aforesaid accused persons were recorded, who revealed names of Goldi, Anchit, Anshul, Pradeep Goyal, Praveen, Banti, Puneet, Ishwar, Vikas Dabbas and Sanjay Garg, Mayur alias Mani Nagpal, Charu Nagpal, Rohit Nagpal, Deepak Singhal, Peetam, Mintu, Montu, Ashish, Nandlal, Mahesh, Gaurav Nagpal and Sahil, and admitted to have been working together in this GST fake registrations and for earning undue monetary benefit. (xi) In C.D. Parcha No. 24 (29.06.2023) the Investigating Officer found that the fake mobile no. 8800966916, which has been used in registration of GST firms with PAN Number, mentioned in the FIR, was found to have been used in four different mobile sets bearing different IMEI Numbers, therefore, the CDR/CAF report reveals that one of the IMEI in which the aforesaid mobile number was used, it was recovered from the possession of accused Yaseen Sheikh on 01.06.2023 as mobile set Nokia 1423. CDR and CAF reports are enclosed in the parcha, making evident the complicity of accused Yaseen along with all other a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of firms. (xxii) C.D. Parcha Nos. 61 to 65 the Investigating Officer recorded statements of affected persons and victims, in whose names fake GST firms have been registered. (xxiii)C.D. Parcha No. 69 shows that IMEI Numbers of recovered mobile phones from accused persons were sent to respective companies, namely, AirTel, Jio, Vodafone Idea and on being run it was found that said mobiles with certain IMEI numbers were used in registration of a number of fake firms. They provided information that the mobile (IMEI) recovered from accused Yaseen Sheikh was used in 92 GST registration firms, from Vishal Singh and Akash Saini in 53 GST firms, from Atul Sengar in 45 GST firms, and mobile (IMEI) recovered from Deepak Murjhani was used in 139 fake GST firms. (xxiv) In C.D. Parcha No. 72 the Investigating Officer has referred the letter sent to DGGI (Director General of GST Intelligence) , Unit Ghaziabad, in response thereto he had relied that total 2528 GSTIN fake firms were identified which are involved in ITC of Rupees Four Thousand Crore, in respect to the same different Zonal Units have arrested accused, namely, Tushar Gupta, Sanjay Dhingra, Rishabh Jain, Shubham Jindal, Tarun Jindal, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (xxx) In C.D. Parcha No. 81 the I.O. recorded arrest of Ashish Allavadi along with the recovery of driving licence of accused Mannan Singhal and voter I.D. of Baldev. In his statement, Ashish stated that he used to bring payment of GST commissions and he has confessed the names of his cousin brother Amit alias Montu, Arjit, Anchit, Atul, Mannan, Baldev, Nandlal, Ajay, Ishwar, Sanjay Garg, Gaurav Singhal, Preetam alias Chacha and others in the commission of the offence. (xxxi) C.D. Parcha No. 82 shows the entry of bank account of accused persons wherein concerned GST ITC transaction was found, as such the accounts were requested to be ceased by the Bank under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. (xxxii) In C.D. Parcha No. 84 the I.O. shows arrest of accused Praveen Kumar with the recovery of mobile phone, Debit Card of Atul Gupta and two tax invoices. In his confessional statement he admitted complicity in the offence with other accused persons including Rajiv Jindal. He further disclosed the fact that with regard to the fake invoices GST Department has initiated proceedings against the accused, in which penalty of Rs. 12 lacs was recovered from the company. (xxxiii) C.D. Parcha No. 85 shows that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons, at the office of Arjit, Anchit and Pradeep Goyal, used to transfer the said GST firms bills to different places and receive commission thereof. Further, he disclosed the family of Archit and Anchit is mainly involved in this offence and all other accused are involved in different aspects of commission of crime. (xxxviii) C.D. Parcha No. 125 (09.03.2024) reveals that against the absconding accused (1) Anchit Goyal, (2) Pradeep Goyal, (3) Arjit Goyal, (4) Baldev alias Balli, (5) Rohit Nagpal proceedings of Non-Bailable Warrants, declaration under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been completed and lookout circular (LOC) has been issued as such there is less chances of arrest of the mentioned accused so charge sheet was filed against them under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. Meaning thereby that accused have fled away from the proceedings of law, hence, shows their guilt. (xxxix) C.D. Parcha No. 126 (11.03.2024) shows that during the course of investigation accused Kunal Mehta was in judicial custody as such vide judicial permission the statement of accused Kunal Mehta alias Goldi was recorded in jail, wherein he stated to effect the recovery of forged documents from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk account. Copy of recovery memo was served upon the accused receiving their signatures thereon. (xlv) C.D. Parcha No.149 (03.05.2024) shows that mobile phones and tablet which were recovered from the daughter of Deepak Murjhani, namely, Dolsy Murjhani, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Ghaziabad for examination. (xlvi) C.D. Parcha No. 156 (13.05.2024) reveals that the data relating to fake GST firms was shared with DGGI Unit, Jaipur, Rajasthan, wherein on 30.08.2023 names of Rishabh Jain, Shubham Jindal and Tarun Jindal came to light in the present offence. The report of DGGI indicates that the computerised data obtained discloses that aforesaid accused persons have received ITC benefits by way of forged GST firms by creating fake bills and invoices. (xlvii) C.D. Parcha No. 158 (19.05.2024) refers the arrest of accused Rishabh Jain and Tarun Jindal from House No. 105, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, Sector-14 and from their possession recovery of 2 mobile phones, 1 laptop and list of fake GST firms was made. In their confessional statement, said accused stated that they along with Deepak Murjhani, Yaseen, Anchit and Arjit and others have created these forged and fabricated GST fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e used in mobile phone having IMEI No. 862625043825695. The same mobile having the said IMEI was recovered from accused Deepak Murjani who was initially arrested. 19. During investigation it was found that M/s Good Health Pvt. Ltd. was having Directors Sukhveer Singh Yadav and Rajesh Kumar Jha. These persons could not be traced out and it was found that they were dummy directors for the purpose of committing the offence and further during investigation when the statements of employees of the company were recorded they disclosed that they have never seen the said Directors but they used to report only to the applicant - Sanjay Dhingra, and he is said to be the chief controller of the company M/s Good Health Pvt. Ltd. as such complicity of the Director of the Company and that of the applicant was also found in the commission of said offence. 20. Further it was found that a hefty transaction of crores of rupees was found to be made in a very short span from M/s Good Health Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Radhey Krishna Markting, proprietor of which is accused - Mayank Dhingra (son of applicant). It was also found that there were several consecutive transactions in other accounts. 21. I have consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng punished twice for the same offence as the said principle is not applicable at this stage. 26. This Court is of the opinion that law of IPC offence and GST Act are based in different laws or offence. There would be no concern with the principle of double jeopardy in the present case. The charge sheets has been submitted under the IPC offence, which are entirely different from GST offence. 27. Nowadays, money laundering has become a frequent feature and if there is evidence that the recipient attempted to conceal source of funds or participated in transferring the money in ways that suggests intentional wrong doing, thus, create circumstantial evidence as in the present case to hold them involved in the criminal activity. 28. In the facts of the present case, the involvement, knowledge and actions following the deposit determines that the applicant was involved in respect of transactions which he had with fake GST firms which were registered by using PAN Card and Aadhaar Card of the informant. 29. Money trail/ financial transaction and the records that have been traced to track the flow of funds, detect illegal activity which can be analyzed from the bank account of the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me points that should be kept in mind while granting bail are; the nature and gravity of the offence, likelihood of flight risk, risk of tampering with the evidence of witnesses, repeated offenders or habitual criminals, danger to society or the victim, possibility of committing another offence while on bail, interference with justice, specific statutory provisions like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), lastly economic offence and white collar crimes. 36. The present case relates to economic offences. Such offence like large scale fraud, money laundering and corruption, are often viewed seriously because they affect the economic fabric of the society. The Courts may deny bail in such cases especially if the accused holds a position of influence or power. In the present case, money trail of crores, which affects the society at large scale, is involved which started from registration of fake firms by using Aadhaar and PAN Cards of the informant who had not applied for such registration. 37. The Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 40. The Apex Court in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466 has formulated some important factors to be taken into consideration while considering bail applications. Relevant paragraph of the said judgement is quoted herein below: 24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words reasonable grounds for believ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail. 45. The Apex Court in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and another [(2001) 4 SCC 280] , has held that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, larger interest of the public or State and similar other considerations. Relevant paragraph no. 8 of the said judgement is reproduced hereunder: 8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] ) . 47. In the case of State of U.P. Through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21] , the Supreme Court has formulated eight points for consideration of bail application. It would be apposite to quote the relevant paragraph no. 18 of the said judgement: 18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. ... 48. The Apex Court has, in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2020) 13 SCC 791 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 646] , held that preced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
