9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. As common facts and questions of law were involved, the two revisions were taken up for hearing together. 2. Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted as follows. The genesis of the present case were the two letters of complaint lodged with the CBI, by the officials of the State Bank of India and the Oriental Bank of Commerce dated 23.05.2006 and 09.06.2006, respectively. It was alleged in the said letters of complaint that one Mr. Gopinath Das, the proprietor of M/s Hindustan International had allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy with some persons and in furtherance to the said conspiracy had prepared forged and fabricated documents were then submitted to the banks as a result of which a sum of Rs. 12,28,22,463/- was allegedly misappropriated from the State Bank of India and a sum of Rs. 6.76 crore was allegedly misappropriated from the Oriental Bank of Commerce. Subsequently, on the basis of the letters of complaint as above referred, a case was registered by the CBI, an investigation was carried out and ultimately a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judge, 3rd Special (CBI) Court, Calcutta against certain persons named therein. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culiar circumstances of the case, the bank became the primary beneficiary as it had received its money back. The said company, being the Dheklapara Tea Company Ltd., was public limited company and the present applicant/petitioner was a mere share-holder in it. She was not a director of the company. The opposite parties during the course of their arguments before this Hon'ble Court also produced a document being an alleged money receipt which was issued in favour of the petitioner by her husband Mr. Subrata Ghosh. The said receipt indicated that the husband of the petitioner Mr. Subrata Ghosh had received a sum of Rs. 6,51,000/- in cash, from the petitioner. It was contended by the prosecution that such receipt would indicate that the petitioner was somehow connected with any tainted money. This was for the purpose of causing prejudice to the applicant and nothing else. The petitioner had been arraigned as an accused in this case on the basis of presumption only, which had no place in the eye of law. Three judgments were relied on by the prosecution. In the case of P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 (9) SCC 24, Section 26 of the Indian Penal Code was dealt with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Mili Ghosh to Subrata Ghosh evidenced in money receipt. The accused petitioner had shown in her balance sheet on 31.03.2006 that the value of the shares held by her in the Dheklapara Tea Company was valued at an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- and held cash in hand for an amount of Rs. 6,25,685.53/-. In addition to the above, reliance was placed upon the statement of the current account held by Subrata Ghosh which had various transaction and which in the absence of appropriate narration could not be collated and was treated as coming squarely within the purview of Section 3. The provisional attachment confirmation order dated 23rd September, 2009, clearly mentioned that with regard to the property in question, no evidence was produced by the petitioner herein to show that the source of the money used to buy the property was anything other than laundered money originating from Gopi Nath Das that flowed into the account of Subrata Ghosh, who was the husband of the petitioner. Also there was a finding in the aforesaid provisional attachment confirmation order that even though the petitioner had taken a loan purportedly to finance the flat in question, there was no evidence that the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property [or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] [or abroad]; [Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence;] Section 3. Offence of money-laundering. - 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 with the [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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possession or acquisition or use or projecting as untainted property or claiming as untainted property. In the present context, the petitioner could be held responsible for any of the above referred processes or activities. 10. For better clarity, the bare facts prima facie constituting an offence may have to be culled out from the entire factual matrix. First, the present petitioner although claiming to be a home maker and an unsuspecting wife of the accused who had allegedly received the tainted money from the prime offender in the scheduled offence, was nevertheless a prime shareholder in the sham company along with her husband and other relatives. It was the fraudulent transfer of shares in this company that started the process by which money was illegally laundered. Thereafter, the present petitioner was absent from the picture for the immediately succeeding sequence of events. She comes in again when a part of the tainted money parked in her husband's account was used as consideration for purchasing a property in their joint names. 11. In view of the above facts, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, more particularly in the peculiar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
