TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad together when any order of attachment is passed. Unless link and nexus of proceed of crime is established under section 2(1)(u), the proceedings under PML Act, 2002 can not be initiated. No case is made out on merit. The impugned order against the appellant is totally perverse and against the law. The respondent has not prima facie established that the appellant has any link in the nexus in the crime. The prosecution complaint against the appellant has already been dismissed. The appellant has merely received the consultation fee from the accused party at the time of receiving the said fee. The appellant was not aware that he is receiving the consultation fee which may be part of proceed of crime. - MP-PMLA-1503/DLI/2015(Misc.) MP-PMLA-1014/DLI/2014(Stay) & FPA-PMLA-478/DLI/2013 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2018 - Justice Manmohan Singh Chairman For the Appellant : Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta For the Respondent : Shri Atul Tripathi, Advocate JUDGEMENT MP-PMLA-1503/DLI/2015(Misc.), MP-PMLA-1014/DLI/2014(Stay) FPA-PMLA-478/DLI/2013 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the Order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the CBI are scheduled offences under PMLA, the complainant have registered an ECIR no. ECIR/11/DZ/2011/DD(SC)/VM on 28.11.2011 in the Delhi Zonal Office u/s 3 4 of PMLA. 10. On 04.08.2012, the complainant has recorded the statement of Dr. Kewal Krishan Sood u/s 50 of PMLA, in pursuance to the order dated 21.07.2012 of CMM as Dr. Kewal Krishan Sood was in judicial custody in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. 11. Dr. K.K. Sood, inter alia stated that in the year 2003-2004, he had taken land for M/s. Raghubir Hospital Pvt. Ltd. because GDA had passed a resolution that no Nursing Home/ Hospital will be run in the residential area; that he had applied a loan of ₹ 20 crore through Shri V.K. Gupta, CA but an amount of ₹ 6.50 crore only was sanctioned by State Bank of India. 12. Dr. K.K. Sood further stated that for obtaining a loan in the beginning all the documents were prepared by Shri Kapil Aggarwal of M/s. B. Agarwal Co. and in the year 2003 to 2005 he had given ₹ 30 lacs in cash, for preparing the document, to him and later on a dispute arose between him and M/s. B. Agarwal Co. as Shri Kapil Agarwal, as CA was asking for more money, but he lef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Dr. K.K. Sood to State Bank of India for obtaining a loan of ₹ 6.50 crore; that after seeing the statement dated 04.08.2012 of Dr. K.K. Sood, the appellant stated that that Dr. K.K. Sood had paid him ₹ 70 Lacs in cash ; that during the course of investigation the appellant submitted the document of the said property‟ and stated that he had purchased the said property‟ for ₹ 35 Lacs paying ₹ 16 Lacs through cheque and ₹ 19 Lacs in cash to the seller, Shri Rishi Goswami. 18. The complainant alleged that from the investigation conducted, it revealed that the appellant assisted Dr. Kewal Krishan Sood in getting the term loan from SBI, Nehru Place, Delhi and in turn appellant received ₹ 70 Lacs in cash from Dr. Kewal Krishan Sood which is Proceed of Crime in term of section 2(u) of PMLA. 19. It was further alleged that the appellant has invested part of total of ₹ 70 Lacs in cash which he received from Dr. Kewal Krishan Sood for purchase of the said property‟ and rest of the amount was deposited in the bank account no. 629401139789 of appellant maintained with ICICI Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi in different inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akh and rest of the amount i.e. ₹ 35 lakh was deposited in his ICICI Bank Account no. 629401139789 at Nehru Place, New Delhi. However, the ground situation is different as the appellant has opened the said account in October, 2011 and only a sum of ₹ 20,000/- has been deposited in cash on July 28, 2012 ( which was also withdrawn from other bank account). The total of Debit/credit in the said account since its opening is ₹ 380,282/- out of which ₹ 40,000/- was transferred from the saving bank account of State Bank of Patiala, Nehru Place, New Delhi of the appellant. So, only a sum of ₹ 340,282/- (Rs.320, 282/- by cheque and ₹ 20,000/- by cash) has been deposited in the said account. (Page 290-338 of Paper Book submitted by complainant). So, presumption cannot be drawn that a sum of ₹ 35 lakh in cash has been deposited in the said account without conclusive and cogent evidence. Prima-facie, it has to be established by the respondent on the basis of allegation made in the complaint. 26. It is admitted position that the appellant has submitted to the adjudicating authority entire detail of the said Bank Account (Para 57-58 at page no. 106-10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
