9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 of the IPC, section 7 of E.C. Act. The cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and other accused persons u/s 4 of P.M.L. Act in pursuance of ECIR No. PTZO/02/2016, dated 26.08.2016, the official complaint filed by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India. According to the prosecution case, after preliminary inquiry against the petitioner accused Dinesh Prasad Gupta and other co-accused persons who have been found to have committed offence u/s 3 of the P.M.L. Act, the complaint was filed on F.I.R. bearing no.77/2013 dated 04.05.2013, registered initially by P.S. Giriyak, Nalanda, Bihar against the petitioner, Proprietor of M/s Pawapuri Rice Mill u/s 406, 407, 409 and 420 of the IPC. It is alleged t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm wherein the petitioner is a partner in the said firm established in the year 2009 as certified copy of Partnership Deed No.622 of M/s Pawapuri Rice Mill dated 08.11.2011 was obtained from the office of the District Sub-Registrar, Nalanda which reveals that the firm M/s Pawapuri Rice Mill was originally constituted on 27.02.2009 and reconstituted on 08.11.2011. It is further alleged that during course of investigation under PMLA, 2002 petitioner-accused confirmed in his statement u/s 50 of the PMLA that M/s Pawapuri Rice Mill is a partnership firm and he looks after the business activity of the firm and all the financial decisions are taken only by him. His statement has been corroborated by accused Binesh Prasad Gupta in his statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the district administration had the responsibility to collect rice from the rice mill. For this purpose transporter was also appointed by the SFC. They had collected rice and had issued receipt in token of acceptance of rice. Therefore, the allegation against the petitioner that he has made defalcation of rice and only deposited part of the rice is not correct and no offence u/s 420 IPC is made out against him. He has not committed offence u/s 3 of PMLA as neither he own or acquire property. The petitioner and his family members has submitted documents as directed by the opposite party no.2 (E.D.). The said O.P. No.2, however, had not made physical verification of stock nor statements were recorded from the staff of the mill or from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, it was established that petitioner and his wife Neelam Devi have acquired huge immovable properties along with other accused without having any legal source and income during the period which are the proceeds of crime. Learned senior counsel further submits that against the alleged proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs.10,15,94,961/-, properties valued at Rs.4,21,85018 have been identified and have been provisionally attached vide PAO No.09/2018 dated 31.03.2018. A Complaint u/s 5(5) of PMLA, 2002 vide O.C. No.947/2018, dated 23.04.2018 was filed before the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority under PMLA for confirmation of the said provisional Attachment Order. The Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority under PMLA confirmed the Provisional Attachment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orm of cash sales of rice were invested to the tune of Rs.52.18 Lacs in the name of Neelam Devi, who is the housewife of the petitioner and have no independent source of income. It is further submitted that during course of statement recorded u/s 50 of the PMLA, 2002, petitioner's wife Neelam Devi has stated that she is a house wife and has no independent source of income. All the immovable properties registered in her name were purchased by her husband out of his income. It is further argued that section 3 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002 state that "whatsoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assist or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected [proceed of crime including its concealmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possession of any person (other than the person charged of having committed a Scheduled Offence) will therefore be legitimate within the sweep of Section 5 of the Act of 2002." Similar views have been held by Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No. 10765, 10769, 23166 of 2010 against Shri Ramalinga Raju vs UOI & ED, Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WA No.1625 of 2015 and WP No.24432/2014 in V.M. Ganesan vs. ED case." Against the alleged proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs.10,15,94,961/- properties valued at Rs.4,21,85,018 have been identified and have been provisionally attached vide PAO No.09/2018 dated 31.03.2018. A complaint under section 5(5) of PMLA 2002 vide O.C. No.947/2018 dated 23.04.2018 was filed before the Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
