9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey Laundering - challenge to provisional attachment order - large scale illegal extortion punishable under section 384 read with 120 B of IPC - Non application of mind by the Adjudicating Authority - Absence of predicate offence - No nexus between the appellant and alleged proceeds of crime - appellants are bonafide purchaser of the property attached by the respondents - Absence of reasons to believe in the SCN. Absence of predicate offence - HELD THAT:- The Apex Court in Sunil Kumar Agarwal [2024 (5) TMI 1346 - SC ORDER] found that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 1 year and 7 months and was otherwise not named in the FIR, but without expressing any opinion on the issue, the interim bail was granted. The efforts of the appellant is to mis-lead the Tribunal by giving an impression of an order of the Apex Court to hold that the predicate offence does not exist and thus the proceedings under PMLA is not tenable. The written arguments also make a reference of it. The perusal of the order for grant of the bail to the accused would reveal it to be on the ground of long period of incarceration in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The bail wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with the material and proof, the source would not stand proved. Absence of reason to believe - HELD THAT:- The appellants submits that no reasons to believe was given by the Adjudicating Authority while issuing show cause notice. It should have been for each appellant separately - There are no contest on the aforesaid before the Adjudicating Authority, otherwise it has given reasons to believe for issuance of notice. It is not necessary that for the show cause notice, it should be against the person committing the offence under section 3 of the Act of 2002, but can be against the person in possession of crime proceeds. It is not necessary to give reasons to believe separately but can be for the noticee together. The appellants are either the accused or in possession of proceeds of crime and has been indicated in the show cause notice. The appellants are victims of extortion - HELD THAT:- The appellants are victims of extortion because they were involved in transportation of the coal and thereby had to pay Rs. 25/- per ton to the main accused. The argument aforesaid has been raised specifically in the appeal preferred by M/s. Indermani Minerals (India Pvt. Ltd.),. This argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FIR No. 129/ 22 was registered by the Kadugodi Police station Whitefield, Bengaluru. It was for the offence under section 186, 204, 353 and 120 B of IPC. The main accused Suryakant Tiwari was residing in Raipur. The allegation was made against the other accused also. The offence under section 384 IPC was thereupon added by the Karnataka State Police on 03/09/2022. 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued an Office Memorandum (O.M.) on 13.09.2022 titled as "sharing of information with ED in the case of M/s Jai Ambey Group of Raipur (Suryakant Tiwari Group)" based on the report of DGIT, Investigation, Bhopal. 4. As per the O.M., Mr Suryakant Tiwari colluded with Chhattisgarh State Government officials to carry out the offences of large scale illegal extortion punishable under section 384 read with 120 B of IPC. The CBDT disclosed the need of Enforcement Directorate to investigate the matter for contravention of section 3 of the Act of 2002. 5. According to the FIR and the documents received by the Income Tax Department, a search and seizure operation was conducted on the premises of Suryakant Tiwari and his associates. Various evidences in the form of handwritten diarie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered by the Chhattisgarh State Police hon 17.01.2024 vide FIR number 03/2024 which was for the offence transferred to the State Police of Chhattisgarh was coupled with the offence under section 7A and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 420/120 B of IPC against Suryakant Tiwari and others. It is also a fact that on 26.06.2023, the offences and facts disclosed by the Income Tax Department were incorporated in the ECIR by issuing an addendum. The learned counsel for the appellant raised common issues to challenge the provisional attachment order and its confirmation. Leading arguments were made by the senior counsel and was adopted by the other counsel. 9. In view of the above, it would be gainful to refer to the legal issues raised by the appellants to challenge the impugned orders and accordingly to deal with each issue separately. I Non application of mind by the Adjudicating Authority (i) The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind of the learned Adjudicating Authority. It fail to deal with the factual and legal issues raised by the appellants and thereby the impugned order deserves to be set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceeds by converting them into immovable properties through the appellants. (ii) The counsel for the appellants appearing for M/s. Indermani Minerals (India Pvt. Ltd.), Sunil Kumar Agarwal and M/s. KJSL Coal & Power Pvt. Ltd. disclosed the sources for acquisition of 52 immovable properties by M/s Indermani Minerals (India Pvt. Ltd.)and two properties by M/s. KJSL Coal & Power Pvt. Ltd., but was ignored by the Adjudicating Authority. The other appellants did not argue the issue to the length, it was argued by the appellants named above. 29 properties were purchased prior to commission of crime yet attached by the respondent. V Absence of reasons to believe in the show cause notice (i) The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that while the reasons to believe was appended to the show cause notice, it does not deal with or mention the role of the appellant in any of the capacity to justify the attachment of the property. The learned Adjudicating Authority issued the show cause notice mechanically without forming reasons to believe independently for each appellant. In the absence of reasons to believe for each noticee, the proceeding initiated by the Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 384 of IPC and was in existence till the filing of the chargesheet by the Karnataka State Police on 15.06.2023 and therein also it was with the clear indication that the offence under section 384 is to be transferred to Chhattisgarh State Police and therefore predicate offence remained against the accused. An elaborate discussion was made on the issue before the Apex Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia versus Enforcement in Criminal Appeal Number 3840/2023 decided by the order dated14.12.2023. It was held to be a case of schedule offence. 15. In the light of the judgement of the Apex Court, it would not lie in the mouth of the appellant to allege that no predicate offence was existing. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant has further given brief facts of the case to show the role of each appellant and their associates. It was submitted that in the investigation by the E.D., it was revealed that Sh. Suryakant Tiwari with the clout of Smt. Saumya Chaurasia, Sh. Sameer Vishnoi and other government officials had hatched a conspiracy of illegal collection of levy from coal transporters. That was part of the well-planned conspiracy, Sh. Suryakant Tiwari with the active ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iminating documents/digital devices and valuable i.e. cash, jewellery, gold etc. From the analysis of the seized documents/digital devices and statement recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002, it became evident that Suryakant Tiwari accumulated proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 540 Crore out of extortion from coal transportation and other levies. 19. That in the instant case, so far eleven persons namely Suryakant Tiwari, Sameer Vishnoi, Saumya Chaurasia, Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Laxmikant Tiwari, Sandeep Kumar Nayak, Shiv Shankar Nag, Deepesh Taunk, Nikhil Chandrakar, Ranu Sahu and Rajesh Chaudhary have been arrested by ED. As a result of investigation conducted till date, Prosecution Complaints dated 09.12.2022, 30.01.2023 and 18.08.2023 u/s 44 & 45 of the PMLA, have been filed before the Special Court (PMLA), Raipur against the persons arrested along with others. The Special Court PMLA, Raipur has taken the cognizance of offence vide its Order dated 30.05.2023 & 23.09.2023. 20. That, vide the Provisional Attachment Orders bearing No. 02/2022 dated 09.12.2022, 01/2023 dated 29.01.2023 & 02/2023 dated 08.05.2023, movable & immovable properties worth Rs. 221.19 Crores approx. have been pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng under the Act of 2002 were not tenable yet not only ECIR was recorded but it proceeded with attachment of the property. The facts were referred to support the argument and for that the reference of FIR number 129/2022 registered by Karnataka State Police was given to show that it was not registered for the schedule offence under section 384 IPC at the time of registration of FIR. It was added on 03.09.2022 while the FIR was registered on 12.07.2022. It may be that ECIR was recorded subsequent to addition of the offence under section 384 of IPC but while filing the chargesheet by Karnataka State Police on 15.06.2023, it was not for the offence under section 384, 120 B IPC thus to be treated as dropped. The reference of the two orders passed by the Apex Court on bail application in the case of Laxmi Kant Tiwari and Sunil Kumar Agarwal was given to support their argument. 28. We have considered the submission and find no force in the second argument. It is in the light of a detailed judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement in Criminal Appeal number 3840/23 decided in the order 14.12.2023. The appellants therein raised the same a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal (supra), it is only in the event the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved by a Court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case (scheduled offence) against him/ her, there can be no action for money laundering against such a person or person claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence. 29. In the instant case, there is neither discharge nor acquittal nor quashing of the criminal case by the court of competent jurisdiction against Suryakant Tiwari in the predicate/ scheduled offence. 30. In that view of the matter the Court does not find any merit in the instant appeal. Since the Court has found that there was an attempt made by and on behalf of the Appellant to misrepresent the facts by making incorrect statements in the appeal for assailing the impugned order passed by the High Court, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.1 Lakh, which shall be deposited by the Appellant before the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at ground. It was with the clarification that observation made in the order is for the purpose of grant of bail and not to have any effect on the merit of the complaint. We do not find a judgement of the Apex Court in favour of the appellant rather detailed judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia (supra) holds it to be a case of schedule offence, therefore, we do not find any force in the second argument also. 3.No nexus between the appellant and the alleged proceeds of crime 32. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that when they are not accused either for the schedule offence or in the ECIR, there remains no nexus between the commission of crime and the alleged proceeds of crime. The arguments were made mainly in reference to the order of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal (supra) which has already been clarified that the bail granted to Sunil Kumar Agarwal or LakshmiKant Tiwari was with the clarity that it would not affect the complaint. The observation were limited to grant the bail and otherwise in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal, he was granted only interim bail and the counsel for the appellant has not informed about the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Satish Motilal Bidri (supra) has been given. To analyze the issue, we may quote the definition of "proceeds of crime" given under Section 2(1) (u) of the Act of 2002, which is quoted thus.: "(u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property [or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad; Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence;" 13. The perusal of the definition aforesaid shows three limbs. In between every limb word "or" has been used to divide the definition into three parts. The first part refers to the property acquired or derived directly or indirectly out of the criminal activities relating to the scheduled offence. In the first part, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eaving the middle part, then it would be difficult for the enforcement agencies to protect the property till completion of the crime to save the victim from crime committed by the accused. It would be for the reason that if the property acquired prior to commission of crime would not fall in the definition of "proceeds of crime", then the accused would commit the crime and immediately proceeds would be siphoned off or vanished so that it may not remain available for attachment. In fact, the word "the value of any such property" was inserted by the legislature to attach the property of equivalent value, if the proceeds out of commission of crime is not available or vanished. If the second limb of the definition is made dependent on the first limb, it would be literally re-writing the provision or making it redundant to a great extent and for this, jurisdiction does not lie with any court of law which includes even the Constitutional Court. They can declare any provision to be unconstitutional but till then there remains presumption of constitutional validity. 16. At this stage, we may refer to Para 68 of the judgment in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) which is quoted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inition. 107. In contrast, the second and third kinds of properties mentioned above would ordinarily be "untainted property" that may have been acquired by the suspect legitimately without any connection with criminal activity or its result. The same, however, are intended to fall in the net because their owner is involved in the proscribed criminality and the tainted assets held by him are not traceable, or cannot be reached, or those found are not sufficient to fully account for the pecuniary advantage thereby gained. This is why for such untainted properties (held in India or abroad) to be taken away, the rider put by law insists on equivalence in value. From this perspective, it is essential that, before the order of attachment is confirmed, there must be some assessment (even if tentative one) as to the value of wrongful gain made by the specified criminal activity unless it be not possible to do so by such stage, given the peculiar features or complexities of the case. The confiscation to be eventually ordered, however, must be restricted to the value of illicit gains from the crime. For the sake of convenience, the properties covered by the second and third categories may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Seema Garg Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Punjab & Haryana 738. With due respect, we are unable to apply the judgment of Kerala High Court going against Para 68 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra). The judgment of Seema Garg (Supra) has been dealt with by the Delhi High Court in the case of Prakash Industries Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2087. The relevant paras are quoted hereunder: "76. Seema Garg principally holds that the phrase value of any such property and property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad cannot be ascribed the same meaning and effect. The learned Judges comprising the Division Bench then proceeded to hold that even if the intent of the legislature was to include any property in the hands of a person within the ambit of the expression proceeds of crime‖, there would be no need to create three limbs of definition of proceeds of crime. xxxx 79. Regard must also be had to the fact that the legislation itself is dealing with contingencies where proceeds of crime are layered and their origins camouflaged and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led tenets of statutory construction but would clearly amount to the Court rewriting the provision itself in a manner that it stands deprived of vital and purposive content. The Court further notes that Axis Bank had enunciated important safeguards which would apply in respect of thir dparty interests in deemed tainted property. Those caveats duly secure and protect bona fide third-party interests created for valid consideration. This Court, thus, reaffirms those defences as were culled out in Axis Bank. The Court thus reiterates the interpretation accorded to Section 2(1)(u) by this Court in the aforesaid decision. Consequently, and for all the aforesaid reasons this Court finds itself unable to agree with the principles as laid down in Seema Garg as well as the subsequent decisions rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kumar Pappu Singh Vs. Union of India and the Patna High Court in HDFC Bank Limited Vs Government of India, Ministry of Finance. 81. The Court also takes note of the position that although SLP (Crl) No. 28906/2019 is pending before the Supreme Court against the decision rendered in Axis Bank, the judgement of this Court has not been stayed or placed in abe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peared therein did not elaborately argue the issue by referring to the definition of "proceeds of crime" having three limbs to give meaning to each limb for the interpretation of the definition of the "proceeds of crime". The reference of Para 68 of the judgment of three judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) was not cited and thus counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgment in the case of Pavana Dibur (supra) does not propound ratio on definition of "proceeds of crime" and, therefore, direction for the property acquired prior to commission crime is to be taken on facts of that case. 22. It has already been clarified by us that if the definition of "proceeds of crime" is given interpretation by dividing it into two parts or by taking only two limbs, then it would be easy for the accused to siphon off or vanish the proceeds immediately after the commission of scheduled offence and in that case none of his properties could be attached to secure the interest of the victim till conclusion of the trial. This would not only frustrate the object of the Act of 2002, but would advance the cause of the accused to promote the crime of mone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of crime. We are not going even further that the properties have nexus with the proceeds out of the crime but even in given circumstances and scenario that the property was acquired prior to commission of crime then, also under certain circumstances, it can be attached for "the value of any such property." 23. At this stage, it is reiterated that any other interpretation other than the one taken by Delhi High Court in the cases of Axis Bank (supra) and Prakash Industries (supra) for the definition of "proceeds of crime" would defeat the object of the Act of 2002. It is more especially when the arguments raised by the appellant that the property acquired prior to the commission of crime would not fall in the definition of "proceeds of crime". In that case, the task of the accused would become very easy to first commit the scheduled offence and after obtaining or deriving the property out of the criminal activities, immediately siphon off or vanish so that it may not remain available for attachment and otherwise the contingency aforesaid would satisfy only the first limb of definition of "proceeds of crime" leaving the second. We are thus unable to accept the argument raised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompanies. (ii) The movable properties were seized from the premises of Mr. Sameer Vishnoi and Mrs. Preeti Godara but were later on claimed by their family members viz. Meena Godara, Shilpi Vishnoi, Surya Prakash Punia, Tapasya Rai, Radha Vishnoi and Nirmala Godara vide their appeals just to create false legal ownership. The source of these properties has not been disclosed. List of movable properties of Sameer Vishnoi and his family members: Sr. No. Movable Property attached in relation to POC acquired by Sameer Vishnoi Value (in Rs.) 1 Cash of Rs. 26,00,000/- seized from residence of Sh. Sameer Vishnoi at D2/40, Officers Colony, Devendra Nagar, Raipur during search and seizure conducted on 11.10.2022 26,00,000/- 2 Jewellery and gold bullion (Gold net weight- 3303.403 grams, diamond weight-20 carats, gold bullion - 589.500 grams) sized from residence of Sh. Sameer Vishnoi at D-2/40, Officers Colony, Devendra Nagar, Raipur during search and seizure conducted on 11.10.2022 2,12,68,637/- 3 Cash of Rs. 21,03,900/- seized from the premises of Smt. Preeti Godara wife of Sh. Sameer Vishnoi at House No. B-42, Gayatri Nagar, Near Jagannath Temple, Raipur during s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Shri Ashok Nebhani, who during his statement admitted that in the year 2021, the said property was sold to Smt. Preeti Godara for Rs. 38 lakh. Out of this 38 lakh, registration amount Rs. 15,43,500 lakh was paid through banking channel in the bank account of his wife and rest Rs. 22,56,500 was paid in cash on 30.03.2021. (vi) The land at item number 1 was purchased in the name of the Company. The dealing of the said land was between Smt. Preeti Godara and one land broker Sh. Mulkraj Sharma. In the statement of Mulkraj Sharma, he stated that Smt. Preeti Godara had purchased the said land for Rs. 1,63,60,000 crore, from Shri Jaspal Singh. Out of it Rs. 23,60,000/- was paid through bank Cheque and Rs. 1.40 crore was paid in cash. This land was registered in the name of M/s Sri Preeti Tirumala Agro Farm Pvt. Ltd. (vii) The same land broker Mr. Mulkraj Sharma stated that Smt. Preeti Godara had purchased the land at item no. 2 to 4 for Rs. 5.65 Crore, Out of 5.65 crore Rs. 64.98 lakh was paid through bank Cheque and Rs. 5 crore was paid in cash. This land was registered in the name of M/s Trumala Agra Farm Pvt. Land and M/s. Tejaswi Sunshine Pvt. Ltd. The source of cash has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Smt. Saumya Chaurasia and invested in assets which are completely under the physical control of Saumya Chaurasia. A diary was found in the name of Anurag Chaurasia pertaining to expenditure for purchase of two flats no. 103 and flat No. 606 attached by the respondent. He has failed to disclose repayment of the so called loan. He has failed to produce the persons from whom alleged loan was taken. This was nothing but to use the proceeds of crime. (iv)An example of a screenshot of diary entry in the name of Shanti Devi Chaurasia is reproduced hereunder:- The diary was seized as BS-02 by the Income Tax Department List of properties purchased in the name of family members of Smt. Saumya Chaurasia:- S No. Seller Purchase Amount Description of Properties Sold to Soumya Chaurasia and his family members Purchase Date Land at Rasni & Arang, Raipur 1. Omprakash S/o Girjanand Gupta Total Rs. 23,35,000 Khasra No. 848/2 & 848/3, Area 0.3760 hec., Nagar Palika R.N.M., Aarang, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) Shanti Devi Chaurasia, W/o Om Narayan Chaurasia 04.02.2022 2. 1. Premnath 2. Swarsati 3. Indrabai S/o Damodar Chandrakar Total Rs. 33,65,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 022 15. Pragya Vyas W/o Ashutosh Vyas Total Rs. 5,00,000 1.7100 hec. Gram Khasra No. 878, 893 & 881, Area 0.7500 hec., Gram, Potiya, Boribujurg, R.N.M., Dhamdha Distt-Durg Shanti Devi Chaurasia W/o O. N. Chaurasia 28.04.2022 16. Yashwant Kumar S/o Mohan Lal Total Rs. 9,00,000 Khasra No. 909/2, 924, 925/2, 926/2, 927, 928, 929 Area 0.890, Gram Potiya R.N.M., Dhamdha Distt-Durg Shanti Devi Chaurasia W/o O. N. Chaurasia 29.03.2022 17. Ishwari Parsad S/o Mohan Lal Total Rs. 8,00,000 Khasra No. 908, 909/1, 925/1, 930, Area 0.890, Gram Potiya R.N.M., Dhamdha Distt- Durg Shanti Devi Chaurasia W/o O. N. Chaurasia 29.03.2022 18. (1) Satrughan Deshmukh S/o Mohan Lal (2) Inder Bai D/o Mohan Lal (3) Geeta Bai D/o Mohan Lal (4) Shanti Bai W/o Mohan Lal Total Rs. 3,00,000 Khasra No. 926/1, Area 0.4000 hec. Gram Potiya, R.N.M., Dhamdha Distt-Durg Shanti Devi Chaurasia W/o O. N. Chaurasia 29.03.2022 Total Area 25.65 Hect. (v) Suryakant Tiwari assisted Shanti Devi Chaurasia in purchase of the land and for this as per his instruction an agreement was executed between Laxmikant Tiwari and Khoobchand Chandrakar wherein a cash payment of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such large sum as per his claims. (x) Further, his name was also featured in the diary of Surya Kant Tiwari and an entry of Rs. 54.40 Lakh has been made against his name. (xi) A parcel of land has been purchased from 5 persons namely Ashutosh Vyas, Pragya Vyas, Neel Jaan, Raman Jaan and Smt Roopa. During the course of investigation, an agreement was found which has been signed by Mr. Ashutosh Vyas, Mrs. Pragya Vyas and Manish Upadhyay. Earlier, this property was to be sold to Manish Upadhyay as per the agreement but later the properties were registered in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi Chaurasia. (xii) The parcel of land has been sold by Shri Yashwant Lal S/o Mohan Lal, Shatruhan Deshmukh S/o Mohan Lal, Sh. Ishwari Prasad S/o Mohan Lal and Sh. Ishwari Prasad S/o Mohan Lal. (xiii) A calculation sheet for the purchase of the same land has been shared by Manish Upadhyay with Roshan Singh (one of the confidants of Suryakant Tiwari) over WhatsApp. The cheque figures of Rs. 20 lakh mentioned in the sheet matches with the final sale deed. The cash advance of Rs. 1 Crore is also corroborated from diary entries. In view of the above, the appellant was required to disclose the sour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 389, 393, 394, 396, 402, 403, 404 & 411/2, Area- 5.15 Hect. At Thakuraintola, Patan, Dist-Durg, Chhattisgarh Shri Anil Agrawal 02.12.2021 Total 5.15 Hectare (ii) This land was first purchased in Sep 2021, in the name of Smt. Ashamani Modi, mother-in-law of Saumya Chaurasia. Within 5 months of this purchase, the land was transferred in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi Chaurasia for Rs. 11,92,000/-. Afterwards, within the period of 2-3 months the aforesaid land along with one adjacent land purchased in the name of Shanti Devi Chaurasia for Rs. 44,55,000/- in 2019 was sold to Mr. Anil Agrawal for Rs. 2,27,00,000/- against the total purchase cost of Rs 56,47,000/- (11,92,000 + 44,55,000). This 4 fold increase in the value of the land in a matter of 2-3 months is not explained by them. The transactions are interlinked between the main accused. (iii) The transaction between the appellant involved in case was to layer the proceeds of crime thus remained unexplained. 7. ROLE OF MR. SURYAKANT TIWARI: (i) Shri Suryakant Tiwari is the kingpin of the syndicate for collection of illegal levy of Rs. 25/ton from coal transporters. He deployed his manpower at various coal mines to col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct), total admeasuring to 0.2204 Hectare ,Vill-Belsonda PHN 36, Tehsil & Dist Mahasamund. 28.12.202 Rs. 14,70,000/- (cheque) 7. Khasra no. 339/1 admeasuring to 1.31 Hectare, Vill-Belsonda Railway Fatak Chowk Se Saradih Road-PHN 36, Tehsil + Dist Mahasamund. 12-11-2021, Rs 31,45,000/- (Cheque) 16.08.2022 Rs 31,45,000/- (Cheque) M/s A.A. Buildcon, Partner- Shri Avinash Pandey 8. Municipal House NO. I-24, situated at Khasra no. 1/1 (New 1/12), Mauza-Shankar Nagar, Ward No. 29, PHN 110/63, Tehsil + Dist Raipur, C.G 27.04.2022 Rs. 1,36,06, 000/- 05.08.2022 Rs. 1,51,05,000/- Shri Rajnikant Tiwari : He is the brother of Suryakant Tiwari, and he used to maintain the record of illegal cash collected from coal cartel. He is partner in some of the firms of Suryakant Tiwari. Along with this, he also purchased several properties in his name from the illegal cash. 9. Khasra no. 1707/8 (part of 1707/4), admeasuring to 0.1200 Hectare, Vill- Belsonda PHN 36, Tehsil + Dist- Mahasamund. 28-05-2021 Rs. 8,00,000/- (cheque) 12.08.2022 Rs. 2,88,500/- 10. Khasra No. 78/1, Mauza-Shankar Nagar, Plot No.-I-04 Area-493.49 sq.meteror 5310 sq,feet, The/Dist Raipur 30-06-2021 Rs. 1,18,14,025/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er- Utkarsh Tiwari 23. Kh No- 784/1(0.16 hect), 784/3(0.17 hect), 787/2(0.45 hect), 787/3(0.20 hect), 787/4(0.38 hect), 788(0.30 hect), 789(0.08 hect), 790(0.07 hect), 791/1(0.85 hect), 791/2(0.96 hect), 791/3(0.90 hect), 794/4(0.42 hect), 795(0.83 hect), Area-5.76 hec., Gram - Rasani The- Arang- Distt- Raipur 09-02-2022 Rs. 3,05,00,000/- 04.08.2022 Rs. 3,05,00,000/- 6,92,00,000 (ii) Suryakant Tiwari was a man of no means but with the start of illegal extortion, he had suddenly purchased prime lands at the lowest possible circle rate of the land. (iii) Shri Navneet Tiwari along with his wife Smt. Abhika Tiwari had acquired the land parcel from Shri Komal Sinha at Rs 32.81 lakhs only. Shri Komal Sinha in his statement admitted that he had received Rs 1 crore cash as part of sale consideration. Further, investigation revealed that since Mr. Navneet Tiwari was not having any adequate financial means of his own, the entire purchase consideration was arranged by Suryakant Tiwari's cartel. (iv) Smt. Sonali Dubey in her statement stated that Suryakant Tiwari had purchased this land in her name and he used to operate her bank account and the fund to acquire the land was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Laxmikant Tiwari, in his statements has admitted that all the land transactions done in his name, in the name of his wife & children were entirely done as per the instructions and at the behest of Mr Suryakant Tiwari. (xi) M/s Ridhi Sidhi Build con was provided entry worth Rs 75 lakh by M/s Prithvi Build con for purchase of properties on behalf of Surykant Tiwari. Santosh Kumar Inda, proprietor of M/s Prithvi Build con confirmed that these entries were provided against cash. On scrutiny of the bank account of M/s Prithvi Build con, The cash deposit entries facilitating the fund transfer to M/s Ridhi Sidhi Build con were found. (xii) After searches of Income Tax Department, Suryakant Tiwari sold the said parcel of land to M/s Indermani Mineral in order to evade their attachment from authorities. (xiii) Utkarsh Tiwari in his statements dated 17.10.2022 & 28.10.2022 had stated that Shri Suryakant Tiwari had acquired the land parcels in his name and Shri Suryakant Tiwari himself deposited/transferred the money in his account for the acquisition of the properties in question. Praveen Kumar Agrawal, seller of the said land admitted in his statement that he had received Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 26.05.2022) Rs. 23,20,000/- (Cheque) Maa Madwarani Coal Benification Pvt Ltd, Partnership - 1. Sh. Rajnikant Tiwari , S/o - Sh. Shashib hushan Tiwari 2. Sh. Hemant Jaiswal, Rs. 1,00,61,000 (Rs. 9,60,390/- Cheque/DD) & (Rs. 1,00,610/- TDS) 02.08.2022 2 Khasra no. 438/4, 440, 445, 438/1, 438/2, 443/2, 255, 439/1, 441/1, 441/2, 443/1, 443/4, 444 admeasuring to 2.002 Hectare, Mauza GramJamnipali, Patwari Halka No. 13, RNM - Kothari/Kartala, Tehsil - Kartala, Distt. - Korba Indus Udyog and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Director - Sh. Ashish Kumar Agrawal, S/o - Sh. Rajkumar Agrawal (Deed dated 26.05.2022) Rs. 50,00,000/- (Cheque) Maa Madwarani Coal Benification Pvt Ltd, 3 Khasra no. 438/3, 442/1 admeasuring to 0.303 Hectare, Mauza GramJamnipali, Patwari Halka No. 13, RNM - Kothari/Kartala, Tehsil - Kartala, Distt. - Korba Indus Udyog and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Director - Sh. Ashish Kumar Agrawal, S/o - Sh. Rajkumar Agrawal (Deed dated 03.06.2022) Rs. 7,50,000/- (Cheque) Maa Madwarani Coal Benification Pvt Ltd, 4 Khasra no. 358/2, 409 admeasuring to 0.296 Hectare, Mauza GramJamnipali, Patwari Halka No. 13, RNM - Kothari/Kartala, Tehsil - Kartala, Distt. - Korba Indus Udyo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agrawal, S/o - Sh. Rajkumar Agrawal (Deed dated 03.06.2022) Rs. 8,77,69,500 (Rs. 3,78,91,805/- (Cheque), 4,90,00,000/- (RTGS) & 8,77,695/- (TDS) Maa Madwarani Coal Benification Pvt Ltd, 11 Khasra no. 370/3, 386/1, 389/3, 390 & 395 admeasuring 2.51 Hectare at Gram Gatori, Koni, Tehsil - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Satya Power and Ispat Limited, Director Shikhar Agarwal (DEED DATE 31.05.2022) 5,94,00,000/- cheque and 6,00,000/- TDS Maa Madwarani Coal Benification Pvt Ltd, 6,70,00000/- TOTAL AMOUNT Rs. 31,59,67,100/- 35,28,84,000/ (iii) That all properties mentioned above are properties of two coal washeries. The investigation has revealed that Shri Sunil Agrawal had helped Shri Suryakant Tiwari in acquiring coal washeries of M/s Indus Udyog and M/s Satya Power. These coal washeries were acquired for an amount of Rs. 96 Crore, out of which Rs. 34 Crore was the registered value and was paid through banking channel and rest of the amount was to be paid in cash. Thus, large amount of illegally acquired cash was layered in these transactions. After the IT raids, Sunil Kr. Agrawal made sham paper transactions to show that he was the owner of these 2 washeries and registered the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of property came to them. The huge amount was paid in cash and is corroborated by witnesses in their statement under section 50 of the Act of 2002. (vi) In the light of the aforesaid, even the argument raised in reference to the appellant M/s. Indermani Minerals India Pvt. Ltd is not made out. 4. The appellants are bonafide purchaser of the property 37.The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that many appellants have disclosed the source for purchase of the property but ignored by the respondent. We find that while narrating the role of each appellant, we have given description of the property acquired by them from time to time with analysis. It shows purchase of property by using the cash amount and even with deposit in the bank account and thereafter used for purchase of the properties showing it through the banking transaction. The appellants have failed to disclose the source to acquire the cash used for acquisition of the properties and illustratively we may refer to 52 properties acquired by M/s. Indermani Minerals (India Pvt. Ltd.),showing it to be through bank channels and based on their financial condition. It was submitted that as per the ITR of 2022 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
