9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 3 punishable under section 4 of the PMLA Act, 2002. The case of prosecution, in short, is that one Bipul Hazra, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) Govt. of India, Ranchi Sub Zonal Office, Ranchi had filed supplementary Complaint on 14.12.2011 under section 45 of PMLA punishable under section 4 of the said Act for commission of offence of money laundering involving proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 4.43 crores and this Court after taking cognizance of the offence has framed charge in the said prosecution Complainant bearing No. ECIR/02/PAT/2009/B against Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh on 25.09.2012 and matter is pending before this Court. After filing of the Prosecution Complaint dated 14.12.2011, the role of the accused person and his associates into commission of the said offence has been further investigated in the light of facts revealed in the chargesheet filed by the CBI subsequently on 26.03.2012 I.e after filing of the prosecution complaint under section 45 of PMLA, 2002 on 14.12.2011. After further investigation, the supplementary complaint dated 14.12.2011 has been filed under the contents/facts of abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the W.P (PIL) No. 4700 of 2008. It is further alleged that the Complaint No. 01/09 dated 01.07.2009 filed by Shri Rajiv Sharma, inter alia revealed that Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh was elected from Hussainabad Assembly constituency in the year, 2005 and held the Public Office as Minister for Water Resource, Excise, Civil and Food Supplies Departments, Government of Jharkhand from February, 2005 to January, 2009, while Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh was holding the pubic office, charges of the corruption were levelled against him. It was alleged that he had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income, by corrupt or illegal means. The Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi after investigation into the allegations, filed a chargesheet no. 06/2010 dated 28/01/2010 against Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh for offences under section 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of I.P.C and under sections, 7, 10, 11 and 13(2) read with section 13(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The chargesheet filed by the Vigilance Bureau inter alia alleged that the accused had acquired illegal assets to the tune of Rs. 1,75,15,918/ in violation of the above said sections of I.P.C and PC Act. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .B.A. No. 4278 of 2016), the properties identified during investigation conducted by the CBI as well as during investigations under PMLA, which have been claimed as acquired by Shri Surya Sonal Singh have been detailed in tabular form. Perusal of this Annexure reveals that Shri Surya Sonal Singh, during the Check period and thereafter, has acquired, both immovable and movable properties, (I) value of immovable propertiesRs.1,58,51,003/ (ii) value of movable propertiesRs. 6,11,564/ total Rs. 1,64,62,567/. During investigation, Shri Surya Sonal Singh had claimed before the C.B.I, also before the Income Tax authorities that he had acquired these properties out of following source of income (i) Loan from sister Smit Ankita Singh(petitioner in A.BA. No. 4286 of 2016) Rs. 1 crore (ii)Business income Rs. 11,71,141/. It has been further revealed that Shri Surya Sonal Singh has paid an additional amount of Rs. 77,51,003/ in the year, 2012 that is after the check period to complete the transactions relating to purchase of immovable properties at Vipul Trade Centre, Gurgaon, having total value of Rs. 1,58,51,003/ (the remaining amount has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. To examine the above say, the bank statements and income tax returns of the aforesaid three persons were scrutinized during investigation. ITRs filed by Shri Narendra Mohan Singh for the A.Y, 200910 (FY 200809) on 01/07/2010 during which the said transactions have taken place, declaring a total income of Rs. 27,51,970/ only. As per para 1 of Schedule AIR of said ITR 4, Shri Narendra Mohan Singh has not reflected any cash deposits aggregating to ten lakh or more, in any savings account in a banking company to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applied, whereas , as discussed hereinafter, substantial cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 80 lakhs have been made in one of his accounts. Thus, the declaration made in the ITR with regard to cash deposit was found to be not only false but the above deposits in cash have been suppressed intentionally, so as to disguise the source of these funds. As per balance sheet, incorporated in the said ITR4, it appears that no loan/fund has been reflected as taken as well as given by Shri Narendra Mohan Singh. Further, item 6 of the balance sheet reveals that there is not entry in respect of any sundry debtors/creditors during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... significant income of his own and the funds in question have finally reached his accounts to make him and his family the real beneficiary of funds, the source of the funds would obviously be the same family, which is headed by Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, who has been accused of commission of offences scheduled to the Act. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the statement of bank account of aforesaid persons show dubious pattern of transactions and supports the above conclusion. On scrutinizing the bank statement of account number 21536 in the name of Shri Narendra Mohan Singh, maintained at Samata Sahakri Bank Ltd, Mumbai, it is revealed that there was a cash deposit of Rs., fifty lacs on 22.07.2008 just before the transfer of same amount that is Rs. Fifty lacs, on the same day through cheque number620881 to the account of Smt. Ankita Singh (a/c no. 21535). Further, the same amount stood transferred to the account of Shri Surya Sonal Singh account number 036901501633 maintained with ICICI Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch, Delhi on the same day that is 22.07.2008 by Smt. Ankita Singh. Again the second installment of loan of Rs. Fifty lacs was given by Smt. Ankita Singh to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquired/concealed/used it, as well as projected it as untainted property and hence committed the offence under section 3 of the PMLA, 2012, punishable under section 4 of the PMLA, 2002. A.B.A. No. 4278 of 2016 Pressing the anticipatory bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is son of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, the petitioner has not been proceeded by the C.B.I in its chargesheet filed before the learned Special Court, Ranchi. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been sought to be implicated in the complaint and summoned on the alleged ground that brotherinlaw of the petitioner namely, Narendra Mohan Singh (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4285 of 2016) had advanced a loan of Rs. 1,26,00,000/ to his Ankita Singh(petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4286 of 2016) who had advanced a loan of Rs. One crore to her brother Surya Sonal Singh (petitioner) who is the son of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh. It is further submitted that after conducting enquiries/investigation a complaint in ECIR/02/PAT/09 was filed under section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before the Court of the learned Ist Additional Judicial C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return. The format of the income tax return does not have any column wherein she was required to furnish the details of loan received and advanced. However, the same is duly reflected in the balance sheet attached to the ITR filed by Ankita Singh and the same has duly been acknowledged by the Income Tax Department. It is further submitted that even the assessment of Ankita Singh was reopened under sections 148 of the Income Tax Act and it was found that the said entries were duly reflected and the same can be ascertained from the assessment order for the assessment year, 200910. The opposite parties have admitted that the petitioner has shown the entire transaction in his income tax return but the same was not treated to be reliable by the opposite partied as the aforesaid transactions of Rs. One crore were not reflected in the income tax return filed by Ankita Singh whereas the grounds discussed in the proceeding paragraph clearly indicates that all the transactions were duly shown in the income tax return of Narendra Mohan Singh and Ankita Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the C.B.I has not treated the properties of petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank on 22.07.2008. The said amount was received by Narendra Mohan Singh (petitioner) as an advance on account of MoU entered into with Shri Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Lts for sale of Flat No. 12 on 6th floor, Jupiter building situated at Veer Ghanekar Marg, Vileparle (East), Mumbai. It is further submitted that the said amount which has been received from M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd is duly reflected in the balance sheet of M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd as advance towards purchase of flat and the same can be ascertained from the copy of balance sheet and copy of income tax return acknowledgment of M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd. It is further submitted that as the case of Narendra Mohan Singh was under scrutiny, the case of income tax return filed by M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd was also reopened and reassessed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The said issue of cash advance to Narendra Mohan Singh by M/s Bhavesh Metals Ltd was duly verified, considered and nothing objectionable found. It is further submitted that the amount has duly been returned by cheque to M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd vide cheque No. 718308 date 09.06.2010 drawn on Samata Sahakari Bank amounting to Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n its chargesheet. It is submitted that an amount of Rs. 50.00/ lacs is transferred from the account of Narendra Mohan Singh being Account No. 21536 with Samta Sahkari Bank, Mumbai to Account No. 21535 in the name of Ankita Singh with the same bank on 22.07.2008. The said amount was received by Narendra Mohan Singh as an advance on account of MoU entered into with Shri Bhavsh Metals Pvt. Ltd for sale of Flat No. 12 on 6th Floor, Jupiter Building situated at Veer Chanekar Marg, Vileparle (East0 Mumbai. The said amount which has been receive from M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd is duly reflected in the balance sheet of M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd as advance towards purchase of flat and the same can be ascertained from the copy of Balance sheet and copy of income tax return acknowledgment of M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd. It is further submitted that Narendra Mohan Singh had given a loan of Rs. One crore in two installments dated 22.07.2008 and 23.08.2008 after receipt of advances as stated hereinabove. The grant of loan by Narendra Mohan Singh to his wife was duly reflected in his balance Sheet as well in the balance sheet of Ankita Singh. It is further submitted that gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired by committing the offence of money laundering and accordingly excluded all the five units purchased by Surya Sonal Singh from the list of properties provisionally attached by the complainant. It is further submitted that main accused namely, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh has been granted regular bail by this court in B.A. No. 2703 of 2012 and another co accused namely Smt. Madhu Singh has also been granted regular bail by the this Court in B.A. No 3602 of 2014. It is further submitted that Directorate Enforcement after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet and cognizance has been taken by the Special Court. Investigation in this case is complete and during investigation the petitioner has cooperated in the investigation, so the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the Directorate Enforcement vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that admittedly the petitioners Narendra Mohan Singh and Ankita Singh had filed an application seeking quashment of the proceedings, however, this Court on being satisfied that there are sufficient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch loan. However, said Narendra Mohan Singh admitted that he had taken advance from his real estate business and further advanced loan of Rs. 1,26,63,000/ to his wife Ankita Singh. However, after perusal of his ITR it was concluded that said source of fund and loan was concocted, false and misleading the investigation. It was further concluded that said Surya Sonal Singh does not have any significant income of his own and the funds in question have finally reached his account to make him and his family the real beneficiary of funds, the source of funds would obviously be the same family headed by accused Kamlesh Kumar Singh. It is further submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid allegations in the instant case i.e. ECIR02/PAT/09/AD(B) a supplementary complaint has been filed against accused Kamlesh Kumar Singh, petitioner and others alleging that the petitioner and four others are accused being directly involved themselves in a process/ activity connected with the proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 5,83,64,197/ and thereby acquired/ concealed/ used it as well as projected it an untained property and hence they have committed the offence defined under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said transaction, incorporation of said transaction in the ITRs, subsequently submitted, and even the balance sheet as per the case of the Enforcement Directorate, becomes a suspicious documents, on which documents the Adjudicating Authority has placed his reliance. 15. Further case of the Enforcement Directorate seems to be that when the claim was laid by petitioner no. 1 that he has taken loan from M/s Bhawesh Metal and M/s Ketan Metal, the documents submitted by those firms never disclosed any loan from M/s Bhawesh Metal and M/s Ketan Metal, the documents submitted by those firms never disclosed any loan being given to petitioner no. 1. However, subsequently, some documents were placed showing advancement of the loan to the petitioner no. 1, but those documents in view of the case of the Enforcement Directorate become quite suspicious. In that even, any finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority would not be binding and, thereby, order passed by the Adjudication Authority, would have no adverse effect upon the case of the Enforcement Directorate whereby the petitioners are being prosecuted for commission of the offence under section 3 of the PML Act." Learned standin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and petitionerNarendra Mohan Singh(in A.B.A. No.4285 of 2016). Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory is hereby rejected. They are directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks from the date of this order and pray for regular bail which shall be considered by the trial court in its own merit. So far anticipatory bail application on behalf of the petitionerAnkita Singh (in A.B.A. No. 4286 of 2016) is concerned, taking the fact of provision under section 437 Cr.P.C which makes provision for consideration of bail to the person under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm and also the fact that investigation is complete, prosecution report has been submitted, cognizance has been taken, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitionerAnkita Singh in (A.B.A. No.4286 of 2016. Accordingly, petitionerAnkita Singh in (A.B.A. No.4286 of 2016) is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of her arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees twenty five thousand), with two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
