TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been transferred into the bank account of petitioner Vinod Kumar Garg. It will be debatable as to whether the said amount had been received by the petitioner while being aware that the same was proceeds of crime or not. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA 2002 - HELD THAT:- The said provisions though stringent in nature were amended w.e.f. 19.4.2018, wherein an exception was carved out in cases where the amount in question is less than Rs.1 crore. The present complaint was instituted in December 2018. In other words, the instant complaint had been instituted after the amendment had been carried out and thus the applicability of Section 45 of PMLA 2002 would be subject to exception that the amount in question is more than Rs.1 crore. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een granted bail by this Court in FIR No.221 dated 14.11.2013 vide order dated 1.10.2015 passed in CRM-M-29452 of 2015. The respondent investigated the matter and found that VAT refund amounting to Rs.74.36 lakhs has been wrongly credited in the account of Yourk International (Proprietor Sh. Ramesh Mehan). The aforesaid amount was further transferred in the account of M/s Shreyas International of which Rajeev Mehan son of Sh. Ramesh Mehan is the Proprietor. A sum of Rs.44 lakhs out of the aforesaid VAT refund of Rs.74.36 lakhs was found to have been transferred in the account of M/s Jaldhara Cotspin Private Limited of which Raman Kumar Garg and Brij Lal Garg are Directors. Brij Lal Garg is father of petitioner and Raman Kumar Garg is so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering Act (hereinafter referred to as PMLA 2002 ) and that even recently the petitioner has been involved in FIR No.06 dated 16.2.2022 Police Station CBI, ACB, Chandigarh under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 409 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has further submitted that, in any case, keeping in view the Bar imposed by Section 45 of PMLA Act, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. 6. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner himself is not a Director of M/s Jaldhara Cotspin Private Limited and that it is his son and father, who are the Directors. 8. Though learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the proceeds o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
