TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d when the petitioners were not before the Court. Undoubtedly, an accused has no right to be heard before taking cognizance. The petitioners could not have been heard at that stage. The finding with regard to the separate trials, as recorded, in the order 28.04.2022 is definitely a tentative finding. It has been recorded at a pre-cognizance stage. Now, separate complaints have been filed against the petitioners. If petitioners are so advised, they may definitely move an application before the court for joinder of charges or a joint trial. In the eventuality of such application having been filed, the court would have an advantage of having views of the petitioners also and thereafter, such an application could be decided. Any conclusion recorded by this court, on this aspect, at this stage may prejudice the rights of the petitioners to move such an application for joinder of charge/trial before the court concerned. Therefore, the Court refrains from recording any conclusion on it. This Court is of the view that the court had acted within its jurisdiction while passing the order dated 28.04.2022, in the case. It is in accordance with law. The question as to whether all the subsequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Bangerjee, [ 1957 (9) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT] , the Hon ble Supreme Court in some other context discussed the concept of a prima facie case and observed that a prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same were believed. While determining whether a prima facie case had been made out the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence. Having considered the material, cognizance has been taken and the petitioners and others have been summoned. This Court does not see any illegality in the summoning order. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the cognizance and summoning order dated 06.09.2022 passed in SST No. 14 of 2022. In the instant case, the petitioners Ramesh Kumar and Om Prakash are farmers. Their land was notified as Agricultural Land under Section 3D of the NH Act. They had never filed any objections either under Section 3C or 3G of the NH Act. Their role is given in paras 9.1 and 9.2 of the complai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused persons were not involved in money laundering of each and every Proceeds of Crime . The court observed that the complaint was liable to be returned for filing fresh and separate complaints, in accordance with the provisions of Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( the Code ). Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 28.04.2022, the complaint was returned. This order is impugned in all the petitions. Thereafter, the complainant filed seven separate complaints as follows:- SL No. Case No. Name of the accused 1. Special Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2022 Jagdish Arora, Barinder Singh, Arpan Kumar, Dinesh Pratap Singh, Bhole Lal, Anil Kumar and Vikas Kumar 2. Special Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2022 Balwant Singh, Barinder Singh, Arpan Kumar, Jasdeep Singh Goraya, M/s Fibremarx Papers Private Ltd., Dinesh Pratap Singh, Bhagat Singh Phonia, Sanjay Kumar Chauhan and Madan Mohan Padaliya 3. Special Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2022 Charan Singh, Ravinder Singh, Navneet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its entire proceedings; (v) The petitioner Madan Mohan Padaliya has challenged the order dated 28.04.2022 passed in the case as well as the cognizance and summoning order passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2022 as well as its entire proceedings; (vi) The petitioner Barinder Singh has challenged the order dated 28.04.2022 passed in the case as well as the cognizance and summoning order passed in Special Sessions Trial Nos. 14 of 2022 and 15 of 2022 as well as their entire proceedings; (vii) The petitioner Balwant Singh has challenged the order dated 28.04.2022 passed in the case as well as the cognizance and summoning order passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2022 as well as its entire proceedings; (viii) The petitioner Ramesh Kumar has challenged the order dated 28.04.2022 passed in the case as well as the cognizance and summoning order passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2022 as well as its entire proceedings; (ix) The petitioner Om Prakash has challenged the order dated 28.04.2022 passed in the case as well as the cognizance and summoning order passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2022 as well as its entire proceedings; (x) The petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the 5th phase of investigation, Charge Sheet No. 2D of 2019 was submitted against the petitioner Barinder Singh and Jagdish Arora. After investigation of the 6th phase, Charge Sheet No. 2E of 2019 was submitted against the petitioner Ramesh Kumar. After completion of investigation, Charge Sheet No. 2H of 2020 was submitted against the petitioner Balwant Singh and others. 8. During the course of argument, in the instant case, it has been informed that the trial in the aforementioned charge sheets is pending. 9. The Directorate of Enforcement also investigated the role of the petitioners and others in connection with money laundering under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( the PML Act ) and a complaint dated 08.12.2021 was filed in the court, which is basis of the case. The court heard on cognizance and by its order dated 28.04.2022 returned the complaint for filing fresh and separate complaints in accordance with law. Subsequent to it, seven separate complaints have been filed. The challenge to order dated 28.04.2022 has been made on the ground that a court cannot return the complaint with a direction to the complainant to file complaint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produce a defectless complaint, if because of such defects, such as non-mentioning of the age and names of father, etc., the identity of the accused person becomes suspicious or is not established properly then, the complainant must suffer for his defective complaint, but, under no circumstances, could the Magistrate return the complaint particularly after the court-seal had been put on that complaint and the court- fee stamps have been cancelled then, as rightly found by Janarthanam, J., the complaint becomes the court property. 12. It has been argued that since the order returning the complaint dated 28.04.2022, passed in the case is non est in the eyes of law and is completely without jurisdiction, the subsequent complaints that have been filed pursuant to the order dated 28.04.2022 would also not survive. In this context, learned counsel has placed reliance on the principles of law, as laid down in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others, (2011) 14 SCC 770. In para 107 of the judgment, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:- 107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is based on the interpretation of the provisions of Sections 218, 219 and 223 of the Code. According to the scheme of the Code, a trial does not commence until charge is framed. It is a post cognizance stage. Therefore, it is argued that the observations made in the impugned order dated 28.04.2022, deprived the petitioners an opportunity of a fair trial/proceedings in accordance with law. (iv) Even on subsequent complaints, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner Dinesh Pratap Singh, therefore, they deserve to be quashed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the principles of law, as laid down in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d another, (2005) 7 SCC 467 were brought to the notice, learned counsel for the petitioner Dinesh Pratap Singh would submit that the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court, as made in the case of CREF Finance Ltd. (supra), are commensurate with declining/refusal of taking cognizance thereupon i.e. dismissal of a complaint. It is submitted that firstly, the course open to a court of competent jurisdiction upon presentation of a complaint is to take cognizance; or secondly, refuse to take cognizance and just dismiss/reject/ return the complaint; and thirdly, ordering a further investigation. It is argued that there is no procedure in law to return a complaint with an observation to direct the complainant to file the same in a manner other than the way preferred by the complainant, whether in form or in substance. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Jagdish Arora, Arpan Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Chauhan and Vikas Kumar adopts the arguments as made on behalf of the petitioner Dinesh Pratap Singh. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Bhole Lal, Bhagat Singh Fonia and Mohan Singh Padaliya would also adopt the arguments as advanced on behalf of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es can be formulated: 51.1. Section 218 provides that separate trials shall be conducted for distinct offences alleged to be committed by a person. Sections 219-221 provide exceptions to this general rule. If a person falls under these exceptions, then a joint trial for the offences which a person is charged with may be conducted. Similarly, under Section 223, a joint trial may be held for persons charged with different offences if any of the clauses in the provision are separately or on a combination satisfied. 51.2. While applying the principles enunciated in Sections 218-223 on conducting joint and separate trials, the trial court should apply a two-pronged test, namely, (i) whether conducting a joint/separate trial will prejudice the defence of the accused; and/or (ii) whether conducting a joint/separate trial would cause judicial delay. 51.3. The possibility of conducting a joint trial will have to be determined at the beginning of the trial and not after the trial based on the result of the trial. The appellate court may determine the validity of the argument that there ought to have been a separate/joint trial only based on whether the trial had prejudiced the right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not an issue in the instant case. (v) All the offences have not been committed in same transaction; different farmers obtained different fake orders; they had different dealings with the Revenue Officials. (vi) In each farmer s case, there was a separate conspiracy. That forms one set of conspiracy unconnected with another conspiracy hatched with another farmer. (vii) The petitioners can challenge the subsequent summoning order passed in seven separate complaints. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 21. The Code prescribes a procedure under Chapter XV for complaints to the Magistrate. According to the Scheme, when the complaint is presented to the Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code, the Magistrate shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present. Section 201 of the Code deals with the return of complaint. It is as hereunder:- 201. Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case.-If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall,- (a) if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect; (b) if the complai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 200 can take cognizance of an offence made out therein and held them to examine the complainant as witness. 27. In the case of Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and others Vs.V. Narayana Reddy and others, (1976) 3 SCC 252 (in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2019) 17 SCC 1, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the statement of law contained in para 17 of the judgment in the case of Devarpalli Lakshimanaraya Reddy (supra) cannot be relied upon. But, that was on another point), the Hon ble Supreme Court discussed the word cognizance and in paras 13 and 14 observed as hereunder:- 13. It is well settled that when a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint, disclose the commission of an offence. This is clear from the use of the words may take cognizance which in the context in which they occur cannot be equated with must take cognizance . The word may gives a discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e action taken by the court for initiating judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of the offence regarding which the complaint is filed. Before it can be said that any Magistrate or court has taken cognizance of an offence it must be shown that he has applied his mind to the facts for the purpose of proceeding further in the matter at the instance of the complainant. If the Magistrate or the court is shown to have applied his mind not for the purpose of taking action upon the complaint but for taking some other kind of action contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure such as ordering investigation under Section 156(3) or issuing a search warrant, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence (Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas v. State of W.B. [AIR 1959 SC 1118 : 1959 Cri LJ 1368] and Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam [AIR 1961 SC 986 : (1961) 2 Cri LJ 39] ). 29. The word cognizance has been interpreted by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer Vs. Videocon International Ltd. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 492, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:- 19. The expression cognizance has not been defi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, in view of the observations made by the Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of CREF Finance Ltd.(supra). The Hon ble Supreme Court observed that the complaint may be returned, if it is filed without sanction of the competent authority. The question of sanction also involves merits of the case. While appreciating the arguments on the question of sanction, merits are always required to be examined, as to whether the act complained of was done by the accused in discharge of his official duties or not? Therefore, definitely, before taking cognizance, a complaint may be returned by the Magistrate even on merits. 34. The another question which falls for scrutiny is, as to whether the order dated 28.04.2022, passed in the case is bad, because it is a case, in which the petitioners should be put to a joint trial? 35. At this stage, this Court would like to make a few things clear. At the very outset, when the arguments began, this Court wanted to know from the petitioners, as to how are they aggrieved by separate complaints? 36. On behalf of the petitioner Dinesh Pratap Singh, it was argued that if the petitioners are faced to separate complaints, they may have to obtain sep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Code are post cognizance. But, as stated and held by this Court, the Magistrate may return a complaint before taking cognizance. 39. Section 218 of the Code is a general rule for framing of charge. It speaks of a separate charge and a separate trial for every offence. The general rule is that for a distinct offence, there should be a distinct charge and a separate trial. But there are circumstances, in which the charges may be joint and different persons may be put to a joint trial. Sections 218, 219 and 223 of the Code are as hereunder:- 218. Separate charges for distinct offences. (1) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately: Provided that where the accused person, by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions of sections 219, 220, 221 and 223. 219. Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch offence; and the provisions contained in the former part of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to all such charges: Provided that where a number of persons are charged with separate offences and such persons do not fall within any of the categories specified in this section, the Magistrate or Court of Session may, if such persons by an application in writing, so desire, and if he or it is satisfied that such persons would not be prejudicially affected thereby, and it is expedient so to do, try all such persons together. 40. The Scheme of the PML Act also envisages trial of schedule offence and trial of offences under the PML Act before one and the same court. Section 44(1)(c) of the PML Act deals with it. At the cost of repetition, this Court reproduces as to what is provided under Section 44(1)(c) of the PML Act. According to it If the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence is other than the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the complaint of the offence of money-laundering under sub-clause (b), it shall, on an application by the authority authorized to file a complaint under this Act, commit the case relating to the scheduled offen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .......................................... ................................................................................................................................................... 32. In R. v. Griffiths [R. v. Griffiths, (1966) 1 QB 589 : (1965) 3 WLR 405 : (1965) 2 All ER 448 (CA)] it has been laid down that a conspiracy should be tried separately to substantive counts. The Court of Appeal in England has laid down thus : (QB p. 594) The practice of adding what may be called a rolled-up conspiracy charge to a number of counts of substantive offences has become common. We express the very strong hope that this practice will now cease and that the courts will never again have to struggle with this type of case, where it becomes almost impossible to explain to a jury that evidence inadmissible against the accused on the substantive count may be admissible against him on the conspiracy count once he is shown to be a conspirator. We do not believe that most juries can ever really understand the subtleties of the situation. In our judgment, except in simple cases, a conspiracy count (if one is needed at all) should be tried separately to substantive counts. 33 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Now, separate complaints have been filed against the petitioners. If petitioners are so advised, they may definitely move an application before the court for joinder of charges or a joint trial. In the eventuality of such application having been filed, the court would have an advantage of having views of the petitioners also and thereafter, such an application could be decided. Any conclusion recorded by this court, on this aspect, at this stage may prejudice the rights of the petitioners to move such an application for joinder of charge/trial before the court concerned. Therefore, the Court refrains from recording any conclusion on it. 45. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the court had acted within its jurisdiction while passing the order dated 28.04.2022, in the case. It is in accordance with law. The question as to whether all the subsequent seven complaints may be jointly tried or not is still open. In case, an application for joint trial is filed in any of the subsequent seven complaints, the court would definitely decide such application in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.04.2022 does not warrant any interfere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was submitted to the National Highways Authority of India and in the note sheet of the National Highways Authority of India, this fact is mentioned that there is a change of nature of land in the notification under Section 3D of the NH Act and in the proceedings under Section 3G of the NH Act. The petitioner did not conceal anything. The Project Director has approved the offer. The note sheet of the NHAI also reveals that the NHAI has approved the offer subject to the verification of legality of Section 143 proceedings. (v) In para 9.8 of the counter affidavit, the respondent has stated that the petitioner is to be blamed for generating Proceeds of Crime on the basis of back dated orders. It is submitted that the petitioner was posted as a competent authority from 18.01.2016 to 15.03.2017. According to the prosecution itself, the back dated orders were reflected in the record on 30.09.2010 and their entries were made on 04.07.2015. It is argued that the petitioner did not commit any offence. If at all, there was any back dated order, they were in existence prior to his joining as a competent authority. (vi) In para 9.9 of the counter affidavit of the respondent, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons mentioned above, we find that the award dated 19th September, 2018 passed by the second respondent under Section 3G of the Act, 1956 has been passed without following the procedure prescribed under Section 3G(3) of the Act, 1956, hence it is quashed to the said extent. We grant liberty to the petitioners to file objection in terms of Section 3G(3) of the Act, 1956 before the competent authority in respect of their claim that a construction is in existence and their land is non- agricultural. The competent authority shall consider their objections and pass the award in accordance with law after furnishing opportunity to the petitioners. The said exercise be undertaken expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of communication of this order. 50. In the case of Durgappa Bharamappa Sannagudi (supra), the NHAI had objected to the compensation on the ground that land was being used as agricultural land and it has erroneously been assessed as Non-Agricultural potential. This contention was not accepted. 51. In the case of P. Nagaraju (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court discussed the provisions of Section 3J of the NH Act and the principles of law laid down i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourth Schedule, among which NH Act is one. Hence all aspects contained in Section 26 to 28 of RFCTLARR Act for determination of compensation will be applicable notwithstanding Section 3J and 3G(7)(a) of NH Act. 52. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had discharged his duties in accordance with law. The petitioner has not gone beyond his jurisdiction. Section 3G of the NH Act requires him to determine the market value, which he did. Everything was open and informed to his seniors. 53. Learned counsel for the petitioners Arpan Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Chauhan, Vikas Kumar and Jagdish Arora would adopt the arguments as advanced on behalf of the petitioner Dinesh Pratap Singh. Learned counsel would also submit that the money which the petitioner Arpan Kumar had received, it was in lieu of a family settlement; he got Rs.50 Lakhs and Rs. 50 Lakhs was received by his father and Rs. 5 Lakhs was received by his brother. It is also submitted that the petitioner Sanjay Kumar Chauhan and Vikas Kumar were employees of Revenue Department. They followed the orders of their superiors; they have not made any back dated entries. 54. Learned counsel for the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 3G of the NH Act. (iv) Petitioner Dinesh Pratap Singh sought information with a mala fide intention to pay an excess compensation to the farmers. It is argued that the entire material that has been filed along with the complaints reveal that prima facie case is made out against all the petitioners and the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 59. Learned counsel for the petitioner Dinesh Pratap Singh would submit that at the stage of Section 3C of the NH Act, objections with regard to the nature of land to be acquired cannot be entertained. At this stage, objections with regard to the object to the use of land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in Section 3A of the NH Act, may only be entertained. It is also argued that some of the farmers, in fact, assailed the order determining compensation before the Arbitrator and the compensation was further enhanced. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 60. Arguments at this stage have been advanced as if this Court is hearing an appeal against a final conviction of the petitioners for an offence under Section 3/4 of the PML Act. The Court would scrutinize the material to the extent it is necessary to examine as to whether the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that section, the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3A. (2) On the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. (3) Where in respect of any land, a notification has been published under sub-section (1) of section 3A for its acquisition but no declaration under sub-section (1) has been published within a period of one year from the date of publication of that notification, the notification shall cease to have any effect: Provided that in computing the said period of one year, the period or periods during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under sub- section (1) of section (1) of section 3A is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded. (4) A declaration made by the Central Government under sub-section (1) shall not be called in question in any court or b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change. (emphasis supplied) 63. Sub-section (1) to Section 3C of the NH Act makes it abundantly clear that any person may object to the use of land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in Section 3A (1) of the NH Act. What is being argued on behalf of the petitioner Dinesh Pratap Singh is that at this stage the objections with regard to compensation qua nature of land are not entertainable. At the stage of Section 3C of the NH Act, it is argued, the objections should relate to purpose or purposes mentioned in the notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the NH Act for which the land is proposed to be acquired. 64. A bare perusal of Section 3C of the NH Act, in fact, makes it clear that at this stage objections to the use of land for the purpose or purposes mentioned under Section 3A (1) of the NH Act are entertained. It means that any person can object that for the purpose or purposes as mentioned in Notification under Section 3A(1) of the NH Act, land cannot be acquired. It apparently does not relate to compensation part, which is a subsequent stage. 65. At the stage of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g.- Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,- (i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money- laundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with 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 clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is concerning the process or activity connected with such property, which constitutes the offence of money-laundering. The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. If the person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money-laundering against him or any one claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him. 73. The question for consideration is as to whether a prima facie case is made out in the instant matter? 74. Needless to say, summoning of a person is not a routine act. After all liberty of a person is somehow curtailed by requiring him to appear and face the trial. In the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed the consequence of summoning and the role of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence. SPECIAL SESSIONS TRIAL NO.14 OF 2022 77. In this case, cognizance has been taken on 06.09.2022 against the petitioners Dinesh Pratap Singh, Arpan Kumar, Barinder Singh, Vikas Kumar, Bhole Lal, Jagdish Arora and others. It is not the case of exercise of excessive jurisdiction by the petitioner Dinesh Pratap Singh and others. But, it is the case of the complainant that in order to give an undue advantage to the farmers, under a conspiracy, back dated orders under Section 143 of the ZA Act, 1950 were prepared; back dated entries were made; they were entered into computer systems and an excessive compensation was procured in the name of farmers, which was deposited and transferred in the accounts of various individual entities in order to layer and integrate the Proceeds of Crime generated through criminal activities related to the scheduled offence. 78. The complaint of Special Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2022, which is Annexure No. 15 to the petition, at para 8.2.2, the case has been summarised by the complainant. It is as hereunder:- 8.2.2. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tural rate on the basis of back dated order. (h) that Dinesh Pratap Singh, the then CALA/SLAO passed an award No. 10/2016 dated 17-05-2016 (Annexure-33) duly amended vide compensation order No. 21/2016 dated 15.07.2016 (Annexure B-34) for the land at Khasra No. 194 219 situated in Garhi Hussain, Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar at non-agricultural rate; Jagdish Arora managed to get compensation of Rs. 8,22,46,232/- on 06.09.2016 fraudulently at non-agriculture rate for his land acquired for four-laning/widening of NH-74; that the compensation amount was credited, after deducting TDS, in the bank A/c No. 31936645640 of Jagdish Arora (Annexure B-28) maintained with State Bank of India, Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. (i) that the above said fact clearly proves that the said land of Jagdish Arora was clearly agriculture in nature at the time of land acquisition for widening of the National Highway. (j) that, Jagdish Arora, in connivance with Dinesh Pratap Singh (the then CALA/SLAO, Udham Singh Nagar/Nainita), Bhole Lal (the then Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Jaspur), Vikash Chauhan (Reader/Peshkar in SDM Court Jaspur), Anil Kumar (Sangrah Amin attached with Registrar Kanungo, Teh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner Jagdish Arora. (para 9.3 of the complaint) 83. It is the case against the petitioner Dinesh Pratap Singh that he was actively involved in the process of activities connected with generation of Proceeds of Crime generated through criminal activities related to a scheduled offence. (para 9.4 of the complaint) 84. The petitioner Bhole Lal was working as a Naib Tehsildar at the relevant time. According to the complaint, he had prepared and submitted back dated reports of Section 143 ZA Act, 1950. He was involved in the process of activities connected with generation of Proceeds of Crime generated through criminal activities related to a scheduled offence. (Para 9.5 of the complaint) 85. It is the case against the petitioner Vikas Kumar, who was working as a Reader in the SDM Court, Jaspur that he made back dated entries of the back dated orders under Section 143 of the ZA Act, 1950. He was actively involved in the process of activities connected with generation of Proceeds of Crime generated through criminal activities related to scheduled offence. (Para 9.7 of the complaint) 86. The averments as made in the complaint definitely make out a prima facie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the discrepancies found in the record of the said lands in revenue documents of SDM Court and Tehsil. (f) That in the statement of Sh. Rakesh Pradhan dated 27.07.2021, he inter alia stated that when he was posted as Rajaswa Ahlmad at S.D.M. Court, Kashipur during that time cases only upto No. 22/516 were registered in Misilband Panjika of revenue year 2009- 10; that Case No. 22/517 (2009-10) Balwant Singh, Village Banskhera Kala,Case No. 22/518 (2009-10) Pyara Singh Village Dabhora Musthakam, Case No. 22/519 (2009-10) Kashmir Kaur and Amarjeet Kaur village Dabhora Mustakam were not entered by him and also their case files were not available in his chargelist handed over by him upon his transfer, that the entries of above mentioned cases were entered back dated after his transfer from S.D.M. Court, Kashipur. (g) The above said facts clearly prove that the said land of Balwant Singh was clearly agricultural in nature at the time of land acquisition for widening of National Highway. (h) That, as per police chargesheet, Barinder Singh along with his grandfather Balwant Singh managed to get back dated order of section 143 of UPZA LR Act, 1950 passed on 30.09.2010 in case no. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (k) The above said facts clearly proves the malafide intentions of Balwant Singh, Barinder Singh, Dinesh Pratap Singh (the then CALA/SLAO, Udham Singh Nagar/Nainital), Bhagat Singh Fonia (the then SDM, Kashipur/Jaspur), Sanjay Kumar Chauhan (the then Reader at SDM Court, Kashipur), Madan Mohan Palia (the then Naib Tehsildar Kashipur) attached with Registrar Kanungo, Tehsil, Jaspur) of causing huge financial losses to the Govt. treasury and corresponding financial gains to themselves. 88. The role of individual petitioners summoned in this case has been given at para 9 of the complaint. In para 9.1, the role of the petitioner Balwant Singh is stated. He is a farmer. His land was notified as Agriculture Land under Section 3D of the NH Act. Under a conspiracy with the other petitioners and co-accused, he had obtained forged back dated orders under Section 143 of the ZA Act, 1950. He had received excessive compensation, which was utilized for buying movable and immovable properties in his name and in the name of his family members, which was withdrawn in cash in order to layer and integrate the Proceeds of Crime generated through criminal activities related to the scheduled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quite in detail. The court below has taken into consideration the material placed before it. Having considered the material, cognizance was taken and the petitioners and others have been summoned. This Court does not see any illegality in the summoning order. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the cognizance and summoning order dated 06.09.2022 passed in SST No. 15 of 2022. SPECIAL SESSIONS TRIAL No. 16 of 2022 96. In this case, cognizance and summoning order dated 06.09.2022 has been passed against the petitioners Dinesh Pratap Singh, Vikas Kumar, Bhole Lal and other co- accused. In fact, the role of revenue officers/officials is almost identical in the case of each farmer. The complaint in S.S.T. No. 16 of 2022 is a part of Annexure 15. In para 8.2.2, the summary of the case is given, which is as hereunder: 8.2.2. That during the course of investigation under PMLA, 2002 so far, it is revealed: (a) That the lands of Charan Singh s/o Khan Chand was acquired by the NHAI fr the four- laning/widening of NH-74 (Haridwar to Kashipur Section). The said land was located at Khasra No.194 219 in village Garhi Hussain, Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar and having area ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LR Act, 1950 passed and its subsequent entries in the revenue records and thereafter got the compensation at non-agriculture rate on the basis of the said back dated order. (i) That Dinesh Pratap Singh, the then CALA/SLAO, despite having clear information that the said land of Charan Singh has been mentioned as agriculture in the Notification No. S.O. 1218 (E) dated 07.05.2014 (Annexure B-19) issued u/s 3D of the NH Act, 1956, passed an award No. 10/2016 dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure B-33) duly amended vide compensation order No. 21/2016 dated 15.07.2016 (Annexure B-34) for the land at Khasra No.194 of 219 situated in Garhi Hussain, Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar, at non-agriculture rate; (j) That Charan Singh received compensation of Rs. 8,03,76,699/- on 24.08.2016 and Rs. 3,97,77,317/- on 07.09.2016 fraudulently at non-agriculture rate for his lands acquired for four-laning-widening of NH-74; that the compensation amount was credited, in his account no. 976010019749913 (Annexure B-22) maintained with Axis Bank, Bhaisia, Gadarpur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, after deducting TDS. (k) The above said facts clearly proves the malafide intentions of Charan Singh, Dinesh Pratap Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g/widening of NH-74 (Haridwar to Kashipur Section). The said lands were located at Khasra No.188 and 190 in village Garhi Hussain, Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar and having area of 0.4462 hectare 0.1942 Hectare respectively; (b) that the nature of the lands were mentioned and notified as agriculture in the Notification No. S.O. 1218 (E) dated 07.05.2014 (Annexure B-25) issued u/s 3D of NH Act, 1956; (c) that Om Prakash and Ramesh Kumar s/o Chaudhary Ram did not submit any objection u/s 3C of NH Act, 1956 but Om Prakash and Ramesh Kumar s/o Chaudhary Ram and other interested persons submitted their claim u/s 3G (3) of the NH Act, 1956 vide application dated 13.06.2014 inter alia stating that the applicant used their land for agriculture for the livelihood of their family. The said information has been received from the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Udham Singh Nagar/Nainital vide letter dated 29.06.2021 (Annexure B-26). (d) that the NHAI conducted Joint Measuring Survey (JMS) for the said land which were being acquired for the widening/four-laning of NH-74; that the said land was also mentioned as agriculture as per Joint Measuring Survey (JMS) Report as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intained with PNB Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. (j) that the above said fact clearly proves that the said land of Ramesh Kumar and Om Prakash was clearly agriculture in nature at the time of land acquisition of widening of the National Highway. (k) That, Ramesh Kumar and Om Prakash, in connivance with Dinesh Pratap Singh (the then CALA/SLAO, Udham Singh Nagar/Nainital), Bhole Lal (the then Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Jaspur), Vikas Chauhan (Reader/Peshkar in SDM Court Jaspur), Anil Kumar (Sangrah Amin attached with Registrar Kanungo, Tehsil Jaspur) middlemen and others illegally managed to get the forged back dated order u/s 143 of the U.P.Z.A. L.R. Act, 1950 passed and its subsequent entries in the revenue records and thereafter got the compensation at non- agriculture rate on the basis of the said back dated order. 100. The role of individual petitioner is given in para 9 of the complaint. In the instant case, the petitioners Ramesh Kumar and Om Prakash are farmers. Their land was notified as Agricultural Land under Section 3D of the NH Act. They had never filed any objections either under Section 3C or 3G of the NH Act. Their role is given in paras 9.1 and 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
