9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "PMLA") (ii) This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold that since the arrest of the Petitioner by the Directorate of Enforcement is illegal and in violation of section 19 of PMLA, the consequential orders of remand passed by Learned Special Court, PMLA, Patna dated 28.09.2024 and 05.10.2024 and all other future orders extending the remand of the Petitioner are also illegal. (iii) To issue a further appropriate writ, order or direction for the forthwith release of the Petitioner from judicial custody. (iv) This Hon'ble Court may award the cost of litigation and suitable compensation to the Petitioner for the loss and damages caused on account of the illegal and arbitrary actions of the Respondent(s) Authorities. (v) To grant any other relief or reliefs which the Petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The salient facts necessary for the adjudication of the instant writ petition are as follows: One M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited (hereinafter described as "M/s AMPL" for short) was granted settlement of all sand quarrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 24,42,67,900/- to the Government. Thus, M/s AMPL allegedly embazelled huge quantity of sum by illegal mines and the above-mentioned sum was proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("the PMLA" for brevity). Subsequently, vide another addendum dated 9th of November, 2023, a second ECIR was registered taking into consideration subsequent 12 F.I.R.s against M/s AMPL and certain other persons. The Petitioner was neither named in the F.I.R., nor connected with sand mining business. No license was granted to the Petitioner for extraction of sand and he is no way connected with sand business of M/s AMPL. However, in course of investigation, the Petitioner was summoned to appear before the ED on 27th of October, 2023. The Petitioner informed the Investigating Officer of ED that at the relevant point of time he was out of the country. The Petitioner appeared before the ED on 25th of September, 2024 and furnished all required information claimed by the Investigating Officer under Annexure- A to the summon, dated 9th of September, 2024." 3. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that on 10th of November, 2023, the ED, after completion of investigation, submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , submits that the Petitioner is not implicated as an accused in Dehri Nagar P.S. Case No. 407 of 2021 which was registered by police attached to Dehri Nagar Police Station under Sections 411 and 402 of the IPC. In ECIR No. PTZO/07/2022, dated 10th of January, 2022 and Addendum ECIR, dated 4th June, 2023, the contents of the FIR of the aforesaid case has been briefly narrated as hereunder:- (i) Examination of the FIR no, 407/2021 dated 03.08.2021 revealed that Authorized Staff/Director of the license holder M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited for the license no. KROHTAS/ 07/2021 having address Mauza - Makrain, Mauza no.-00, Block-Dehri Thana Dalmia Nagar, District-Rohtas, Khata No-112, Khesra No-408 and license no. K-ROHTAS/14/2021 having address- Mauza - Makrain, Mauza no-00, Block- Dehri, Thana Dalmia Nagar, District- Rohtas, Khata No.-112, Khesra No.-408 has, been charged with section 411 and 420 of Indian Penal Code for Dishonestly receiving stolen property and Criminal Conspiracy respectively have been invoked which are scheduled under Part A, Paragraph 1 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) In the above mentioned FIR, it is alleged that during the inspection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dummy entities. After one dummy entity wins the bid, initial royalty payment is made pulling money from different persons. Actual mining is controlled by the syndicate and profits generated from illegal mining of sand are divided amongst the syndicate members. The said profit from illegal mining is claimed to be the proceeds of crime. One Mithlesh Kumar being a syndicate member in his statement stated that the Petitioner/ Ajay Singh is part of the syndicate having 10 per cent share. On perusal of the bank accounts statement of S.G. Project Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter described as SGPL), a Private Limited Company of the Petitioner, huge financial transaction was found between the said company and M/s AMPL. The said money amounting to Rs. 1 Crore 34 Lakhs, approximately are transactions in non-interests bearing loans to M/s AMPL. It is also alleged by the ED that huge amount of money was transferred from bank account of Vinay Vinimay Private Limited to M/s AMPL. It is claimed by the ED that the said amount was transferred as loans to M/s AMPL but no supporting documents has been filed by the ED in support of his claim. 12. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has further point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeds of crime, namely:- (a) concealment; or (b) possession; or (c) acquisition; or (d) use; or (e) projecting as untainted property; or (f) claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever; (ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever." 16. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner next refers to the provision contained in Section 19 of the said Act which speaks of power to arrest. Section 19 states as follows:- "Section 19:- Power to arrest. 1) If the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer 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 (the 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 15 of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. C. Shukla & Ors., reported in 1998 3 SCC 410. It is held by the three Judge's Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 15 of the said judgment as hereunder:- "15. After having held that the documents were neither books of account nor kept in the regular course of business the High Court observed that even if they were admissible under Section 34, they were not, in view of the plain language of the section, sufficient enough to fasten the liability on the head of a person, against whom they were sought to be used. As, according to the High Court, the prosecution conceded that besides the alleged entries in the diaries and the loose sheets there was no other evidence it observed that the entries would not further the case of the prosecution. As regards the admissibility of the documents under Section 10 the High Court held that the materials collected during investigation did not raise a reasonable ground to believe that a conspiracy existed, far less, that the respondents were parties thereto and, therefore, these documents would not be admissible under Section 10 also. The High Court next took up the question as to whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it." 22. In Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1957 SC 747, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is recognized on well established authority that principle underlying the reception of evidence of the statements, acts and writings of one co-conspirator as against the other is on the theory of agency. Ordinarily, a person cannot be made responsible for the acts of others unless they have been instigated by him or done with his knowledge or consent. 23. This Section provides an exception to the rule, by laying down an overt act committed by one of the conspirators being sufficient to make it the act of all. But then, the opening words of Section made it abundantly clear that such concept of agency can be availed, only after the Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that they have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong. In other words, only when such reasonable ground exits, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titions vis-à-vis challenge to the appointments of Respondents 2 and 3. We are examining only the merit of IA No. 3 supported by IA No. 4, as to whether a case is made out on the basis of materials which are placed on record, to constitute SIT and direct investigation against the various functionaries/officers which are projected in Annexures A-8, A- 9 and A-10 and other entries on loose sheets and further monitor the same. 278. With respect to the kind of materials which have been placed on record, this Court in V.C. Shukla case [CBI v. V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 761] has dealt with the matter though at the stage of discharge when investigation had been completed but same is relevant for the purpose of decision of this case also. This Court has considered the entries in Jain Hawala diaries, notebooks and file containing loose sheets of papers not in the form of "books of accounts" and has held that such entries in loose papers/sheets are irrelevant and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, and that only where the entries are made in the books of accounts regularly kept, depending on the nature of occupation, that those are admissible." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same issue, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph no. 38 of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, has observed, while interpreting Section 19 of the said Act with reference to Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India, "In this regard, we may note that Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. This being the fundamental right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. It may be noted that Section 45 PMLA enables the person arrested under Section 19 thereof to seek release on bail but it postulates that unless the twin conditions prescribed thereunder are satisfied, such a person would not be entitled to grant of bail. The twin conditions set out in the provision are that, firstly, the Court must be satisfied, after giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for release, that there are reasonable gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est is illegal, violative of fundamental right and is liable to be quashed. 35. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576, it is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the failure on the part of the petitioner to respond to the question put to him by ED would not be sufficient in itself for the Investigating Officer to hold that he was liable to be arrested under Section 19, as the said provisions specially required him to find reason to believe that they were guilty of an offence under the said Act. Mere non-corporation of a witness in response to the summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA would not be enough to render him liable to be arrested under Section 19. 36. It was stated by the ED that the petitioner was evasive in providing relevant information. It was however not clarified as to why the petitioner's replies were categorized as evasive and that record is not placed before this Court for verification. Evasive reply by the petitioner as alleged by the ED cannot be a ground for his arrest. 37. The Assistant Director, ED, Patna Zonal Office, has filed a counter affidavit on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s further contended on behalf of the respondents that the documents seized from the premises of Radha Charan Sah and Ashok Kumar include details of ledger of income and expenditure related to sale of sand from various Ghats of Aurangabad and Rohtas, Bihar and details of profit sharing percentage among the syndicate members. The entries recorded in the said documents were further corroborated with the transactions undertaken through bank account of M/s AMPL and others. 39. It was learnt from the ledger that sand worth Rs. 38,71,46,070/- was illegally sold during the period April, 2020 to August, 2020 without generation of challan causing revenue loss to the Government exchequer. 40. It is further stated on behalf of the respondents that the information was shared under Section 66(2) of the PMLA with the Mining Department, Bihar with a copy to DGP, Bihar Police. On the basis of the said information, the Mining Department filed the complaint before the State Police and accordingly FIR No. 6137017240047 was registered by the police in Dehri Nagar Police Station on 8th of February, 2024 as well as Dehri Nagar P.S. Case No. 5125024240115 on 13th of February, 2024 against M/s AMPL for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted by him that syndicate of sand scam has been operating. 42. Entire process of tender of sand ghats is under the control of the syndicate. M/s AMPL, Radha Charan Sah, Ashok Kumar, the present petitioner and others are members of the said syndicate and illegal trade of sand was operated by syndicate members and they used to receive proceeds of crime according to their share. M/s AMPL and Broadson Commodities Private Limited are the two major companies involved in illegal trade of sand. The ED filed complaint against M/s AMPL and its Directors after 24 numbers of FIRs were lodged alleging commission of scheduled offence by them. During investigation of the cases, ED found complicity of the present petitioner and others allegedly on the basis of ledger book seized from the possession of one Radha Charan Sah and documents seized by the Income Tax Department during raid and therefore the accused were arrested. 43. It is further submitted by the learned ASG that incriminating materials against the accused were found from the statement of one Mithlesh Kumar and the documents mentioned above. The petitioner was interrogated for three consecutive days but he failed to clear away the ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such resolution, the bank institutions shall be asked by the company to disburse the amount in the credit of the trasferee company and there would be similar resolution at the time of transfer of the money in the account of transferee company. No such requirement was followed either by M/s AMPL or by the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner's complicity is proved. 48. The learned ASG refers to page 92 of the writ petition, consisting the statement regarding "reason to believe". Paragraph Nos. 9 to 14 and 19 to 20 of the said document states as follows: "9. Further investigation in this case revealed that Shri Ajay Singh, Director of SG Projects Pvt Ltd is also a part of this syndicate with 10% of total share in the profit generated from the illegal sand mining and sale of sand by M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited. Further document seized by income tax department also corraborates involvement of syndicate members, amount paid to them against the dding amount and share received from the illegal sale of sand. Further, the analysis of bank accounts of Mis SG Projects Pvt Ltd reflects huge transactions with Mis Aditya Multicom Pvt Ltd. 10. During the course of statement u's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ledger of M/s Aditya Multicom Pvt Ltd revealed that transactions with Vinay Vinimay Pvt Ltd were against sale of sand. Hence, it is evident that Ajay Singh. Director of SG Projects Pvt Ltd is giving contradictory replies and trying to hide the truth to mislead the investigation. 14. Further on perusal of ledger of SG Projects Pvt Ltd it is seen that cash deposit of Rs 49,58,000/- was made into the account of SGPL on 17.06.2015 and on the same day Rs 3 Cr was transferred to M/s Aditya Multicom Pvt Ltd from SGPL. 19. Thus, in view of the above, I have reasons to believe that SG Projects Pvt Ltd through its director Shri Ajay Singh is involved in illegal sand mining business and also a part of the syndicate which is involved in illegal mining and its sale, thereby generating huge proceeds of crime through commission of offences u/s 120B, 411, 420 of IPC, 1860 which are scheduled offences under the PMLA, 2002. Further the said proceeds of crime are subsequently being layered and laundered through various entities/individuals. Thus, Ajay Singh is found to be involved in the activities related with the scheduled offence hence is guilty of the offence of the money laundering. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n his custody any such records for a period exceeding three months, without obtaining the previous approval of the Joint Director. 50. In Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 9 S.C.R. 110, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in Paragraph No. 13 as follows: "13. At the outset, it may be noted that as well settled by now, the provisions of PMLA are not only to investigate into the offence of money laundering but more importantly to prevent money laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from or involved in money laundering and the matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. As held by the Three- Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal (supra), the PMLA is a self- contained Code and the dispensations envisaged thereunder, must prevail in terms of Section 71 thereof, which predicates that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force, which includes provisions of the Cr.P.C. The Section 65 of the Act predicates that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the PMLA in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rstand as to how Article 20(3) would come into play in respect of process of recording statement pursuant to such summon which is only for the purpose of collecting information or evidence in respect of proceeding under this Act. Indeed, the person so summoned, is bound to attend in person or through authorised agent and to state truth upon any subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the 2002 Act... 426 to 430..... 431. In the context of the 2002 Act, it must be remembered that the summon is issued by the Authority under Section 50 in connection with the inquiry regarding proceeds of crime which may have been attached and pending adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority. In respect of such action, the designated officials have been empowered to summon any person for collection of information and evidence to be presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is not necessarily for initiating a prosecution against the noticee as such. The power entrusted to the designated officials under this Act, though couched as investigation in real sense, is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution, and we need not further elaborate the same, nor do we need to deal with the decisions of this Court on the said issue which have already been dealt with in Vijay Madanlal. Suffice it to say that Section 50 enables the authorized Authority to issue summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of the proceedings under the Act, and that the persons so summoned is bound to attend in person or through authorized agent, and to state truth upon the subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of sub- section (3) of Section 50. At the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, the same being not "testimonial compulsion". At the stage of recording of statement of a person for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property being proceeds of crime, is not an investigation for prosecution as such. The summons can be issued even to witnesses in the inquiry so conducted by the authorized offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Enforcement reported in 2015 16 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the conditions specified in Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and Section 71 of the said Act. Section 65 requires that the provisions of CrPC shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 CrPC. That coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the appellant. 57. Thus, the learned ASG concludes that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o believe" that the person is guilty of offence, Section 103 speaks of the Customs Officers power to screen and scan a person with scientific equipment when he has reason to believe that any person referred to in sub-section (2) of section 100 has any goods liable to confiscation secreted inside his body." 61. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2023) 12 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made detailed discussion on the meaning and purport of "reason to believe" relying on a Canadian Judgement in the case of Gifford v. Kelson. The relevant paragraph in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) read: "16(liii). ..... Secondly, there must be material in possession with the authority before the power of arrest can be exercised as opposed to CrPC which gives the power of arrest to any police officer and the officer can arrest any person merely on the basis of a complaint, credible information or reasonable suspicion against such person. Thirdly, there should be reason to believe that the person being arrested is guilty of the offence punishable under the PMLA in contrast to the provision in CrPC, which mainly requires reasonable apprehension/suspicion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Of course, "reason to believe" does not amount to positive knowledge nor does it mean absolute certainty but it does convey conviction of the mind founded on evidence regarding the existence of a fact or the doing of an act. Suspicion, on the other hand, rings uncertainty. It lives in imagination. It is inkling. It is mistrust. It is chalk. 'Reason to believe' is not. It is cheese." Gifford (supra) accurately explains the difference between the "reasons to believe" and "suspicion". "Suspicion" requires lower degree of satisfaction, and does not amount to belief. Belief is beyond speculation or doubt, and the threshold of belief "conveys conviction founded on evidence regarding existence of a fact or doing of an act". Given that the power of arrest is drastic and violates Article 21 of the Constitution, we must give meaningful, true and full play to the legislative intent." 62. Thus, it is now established that the term "reason to believe" cannot be equated with the term reasonable complaint or credible information or reasonable suspicion contained in Section 41 (1) (B) of the Cr.P.C. "Reason to believe" is the tangible evidence or material which constitutes sufficient cause to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and expenditure, Investigating Officer came to know details of profit sharing percentage amongst the syndicate members. (e) Upon analysis of the said documents, it was ascertained that M/s AMPL illegally sold out sand extracted from the mines without any permit amounting to Rs. 38,71,46,070/- without generation of challans causing revenue loss of the Government. (f) During investigation, it was also learnt that syndicate members are operational in sand mining activity and they participated in the biding process through dummy entities controlled by them. After one of the dummy entities wins the bid, initial royalty payments are made by pulling money from different persons in the accounts of the bid winning entity. Further the actual sand mining generated from illegal sand mining are divided among the syndicate members. (g) It is also learnt that the petitioner is also a part of the syndicate with 10 per cent share in the profit generated from the illegal sand mining and sale of sand by M/s AMPL. The documents seized from the I.T. Department also corroborates involvement of syndicate members, amount paid them against the biding amount and share received from the illegal sale of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Exchequer. Clause 7(3) also speaks of embezzlement of the said money by M/s AMPL. 68. It is not alleged in the ECIR that the petitioner is the licence holder of any of the sand blocks. It is also not alleged that men and agents of the petitioner or its company were engaged for illegal extraction and storage of sand at the storing places. Therefore, we can safely come to the conclusion that the ED could not collect any evidence to prove that the petitioner was engaged in illegal mining operation in the State of Bihar. In the Addendum ECIR also, all allegations were made against M/s AMPL. 69. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the case on the basis of a statement purportedly made by one Mithlesh Kumar who alleged the involvement of the petitioner as a member of the syndicate. Secondly, a ledger book was recovered mentioning the accounts of syndicate members from the possession of one Radha Charan Sah, Director of Broadson Commodities Private Limited. Thirdly, some documents seized by Income Tax Department showing transfer of Rs. 39 lakhs on 20th of July, 2020 from the bank account of M/s AMPL to the bank account of M/s SGPL. Similarly, on 19th of March, 2020, a sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ign the statement so given with the threat of being punished for the falsity or incorrectness thereof in terms of Section 63 of the PMLA. Under Section 50 of the PMLA, the Director is vested with the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court in the matter of ................ (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a (reporting entity) and examining him on oath. The Directors also empowered to impose fine under Section 13 of the said Act. 76. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Curt in Paragraph No. 338 and 339 of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), reported in (2023) 12 SCC 1, has observed hereunder:- "338. In the context of the 2002 Act, it must be remembered that the summons is issued by the authority under Section 50 in connection with the inquiry regarding proceeds of crime which may have been attached and pending adjudication before the adjudicating authority. In respect of such action, the designated officials have been empowered to summon any person for collection of information and evidence to be presented before the adjudicating authority. It is not necessarily for initiating a prosecution against the noticee as such. The power entrusted to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner admitted that he had financial transitions with M/s AMPL. According to the case of the prosecution, it is M/s AMPL and its Director who have proceeds of crime. There is absolutely no evidence that the petitioner directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity (here sand scam) connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property. 78. The documents filed by the petitioner, Annexure P8 series shows payment and receipt of money including an amount of Rs. 39 Lakhs which was claimed to be projected as tainted money by the ED. The ED has failed to establish that it has reason to believe that petitioner is involved in concealment, or possession, or acquisition, or use, or projecting as untainted property or claiming as untainted property, any money obtained by M/s AMPL through illegal sand mining business. 79. Thus, the statement containing "reason to believe" delivered by ED to petitioner does not contain satisfactory material to hold that the petitioner is guilty of offence under Section 3 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
