9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inter alia held that the petitioner has actively assisted the co-accused to convert the tainted money into untainted money and connived in the laundering thereto. 3. The learned trial court has also inter alia held that the present case being a serious economic offence stands on a different footing and thus required to be seen with a different perspective. Learned trial court also inter alia rejected the contention of the petitioner that the share of the applicant/accused out of the alleged tainted money was only to the extent of Rs. 27-28 lakhs and hence the applicant/accused was to be treated on a different footing in terms of the proviso clause appended to Section 45 of the PMLA. The ld. trial court was inter alia of the view that at this stage, the court cannot segregate the share of individual person and it has to be seen in a wholesome manner and therefore, the role of applicant/accused touches at least a figure of Rs. 48 Crores or so which is the amount allegedly attributed to the co-accused persons namely Anubrata Mondal and his daughter Sukanya Mondal. 4. Learned Special judge also rejected the plea taken by the petitioner that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment under Section 50 of PMLA was recorded. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 14.03.2023 and even after his arrest, his statement was again recorded between 14.03.2023 to 19.03.2023. Learned counsel has submitted that now the prosecution complaint has already been filed and therefore investigation qua the petitioner has come to an end. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the period of predicate offence is from 19.12.2015 to 22.04.2017 whereas the petitioner admittedly came in contact of Anubrata Mondal after this period and upon his request, he then started providing financial (audit, etc) services. Learned counsel submits petitioner duly fulfills the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA as he has not committed any scheduled offence under Section 2 (x) which is a condition precedent for invoking the provision under PMLA Act. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, being a chartered accountant, was only involved in ITR filing of Anubrata Mondal and the members of his family on the instructions of Anubrata Mondal and the same was admitted by Anubrata Mondal in his statement under Section 50 of PMLA dated 12.03.2023. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,06,13,047/- was held by the Anubrata Mondal, Sukanya Mondal, their family members and co-accused entities. It is submitted that the said amount was projected and claimed as untainted property by the Petitioner who was their Chartered Accountant and purchased huge properties, created benami assets and companies for laundering of proceeds of crime, besides ensuring cash deposits in the companies and their personal accounts. 12. It has further been submitted that, in their statement's u/s 50 PMLA, co-accused Anubrata Mondal and Sukanya Mondal, upon being asked about their financials, stated that the Petitioner herein was like a family member and was looking after their financials and they were not aware of the same. Similarly, he was also managing the finances of Sehegal Hossain who is the personal bodyguard of co-accused Anubrata Mondal along with Kamal Kanti Ghosh i.e. brother-in-law of Anubrata Mondal, Shibani Ghosh i.e. sister of Anubrata Mondal and, Bidyut Baren Gayen and Biswajyoti Banerjee who were the household help of Anubrata Mondal. 13. Learned counsel for ED has further submitted that investigation has revealed that the perusal of the ITR's of Bidyut Baren Gayen an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Neer by Sukanya Mondal and Bidyut Baren Gayen on instructions of Petitioner, besides accommodation entries in other companies as well. It Is submitted that a total cash of Rs. 12,80,98,237/- was deposited in the bank accounts of Anubrata Mondal and his family which was neither explained by Anubrata Mondal nor Manish Kothari. 16. Learned counsel for ED has submitted that the business of M/s Bhole Bom Rice Mill, M/s Shiv Shambhu Rice Mill, M/s Maa Kali Traders and the funding of M/s Shiv Shambu Rice is from tainted money and the money was routed through various bank accounts after receiving cash through various accounts into the bank accounts of Mondal family and other concerned businesses were created in the name of benamidars and as per Anubrata Mondal, the business transactions and activities were taken care by the Petitioner who could not explain the same. 17. Learned counsel has submitted that Petitioner herein also filed the ITR's for Smt. Latifa Khatun who was the mother of Sehegal Hossain for AY 2017-18 onwards and Smt. Somaiya Khandokar who was the wife of Sehegal Hossain for AY 2016-17 onwards. Both of them were unable to explain the sources of income reported in thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. In Ranjit Singh Brahamjeet Singh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCR 876, it has inter alia held as under: "38. We are furthermore of the opinion that the restrictions on the power of the Court to grant bail should not be pushed too far. If the Court, having regard to the materials brought on record, is satisfied that in all probability he may not be ultimately convicted, an order granting bail may be passed. The satisfaction of the Court as regards his likelihood of not committing an offence while on bail must be construed to mean an offence under the Act and not any offence whatsoever be it a minor or major offence. If such an expansive meaning is given, even likelihood of commission of an offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code may debar the Court from releasing the accused on bail. A statute, it is trite, should not be interpreted in such a manner as would lead to absurdity. What would further be necessary on the part of the Court is to see the culpability of the accused and his involvement in the commission of an organised crime either directly or indirectly. The Court at the time of considering the application for grant of bail shall consider the ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail." 24. This Court is conscious of the fact that Ranjit Singh Brahamjeet Singh Sharma was a judgment on Section 21 (4) MCOCA and that Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain was a judgment on Section 37 of NDPS Act but the proposition as laid down the Apex Court is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. 25. It is an admitted case that the petitioner herein was a chartered accountant of Anubrata Mondal. The case of the ED is that present petitioner was instrumental in projecting the tainted money as untainted money. The apparent role of the petitioner is filing of the income tax return. It is a settled a proposition that at the stage of consideration of the bail even under PMLA the court has only to see the preponderance of probability. The court at this stage is not required to record the positive finding of acquittal. Such finding can be recorded only after recording and appreciation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
