TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceeds of crime has been channelized to him, thus attachment cannot be held to be illegal. The detailed charge sheet has not been quoted which otherwise refers further facts as to how demonetized money was channelized in the bank accounts of the companies and ultimately it came in the account of appellant. The appellant no doubt submitted the invoices to show supply of cloths to Ajay Kumar Jain but he has not produced any material to show arrangement for payment towards the supply to Ajay Kumar Jain through the bank account of three non-existing companies. The appellant has shown his innocence for receipt of the money towards its supply to Ajay Kumar Jain but it cannot be accepted. The appellant was knowing receipt of money through the firms to whom he never supplied any material. There are no illegality in the impugned order - appeal dismissed. - JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN And SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. R.C. Meena, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Mrinal Kumar, Adv. ORDER FPA-PMLA-3336 3337/KOL/2019 This appeal has been filed under Section 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short the Act of 2002) against the order dated 04 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pply of cloths made to Ajay Kumar Jain was through the companies named above and if demonetised currency was used by depositing cash in bank accounts of the nonexisting companies, the appellant had no knowledge. Rather, he received the due amount on the supply of the cloths and it was in his own bank account. Thus, with no stretch of imagination, the amount received by the appellant could have been attached by the respondents treating it to be the proceeds of crime. However, ignoring the facts and material on record, Adjudicating Authority confirmed the order of attachment. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has made reference of invoices raised on Ajay Kumar Jain so as to justify receipt of payment. It is with a further statement that the appellant was having business with Ajay Kumar Jain since the year 2015. In view of the above, the attachment deserves to be interfered. It is more so when the appellant has not been made accused in the FIR and even in the charge sheet. The prayer is accordingly to set aside the order and allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the money attached by the respondents is tainted money, thus no int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnocent person and otherwise the property attached is nothing but the proceeds of crime. Accordingly, the prayer is to dismiss the appeal. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The facts on record show that an FIR was registered by the CBI followed by an ECIR. The FIR was registered for the offences under the Indian Penal Code apart from Prevention of Corruption Act finding involvement of the Bank Manager and others in the transaction where the demonetized money was channelized through the bank accounts. The appellant‟s bank account had been attached for a sum of Rs.15,737/- and Rs.49910/- in Appeal No. 3886/19 and 3337/19 respectively. Finding a case of money laundering and part of proceeds of crime with the appellant, the accounts were attached though he is not an accused in the FIR and even not charge sheeted. The facts on record show that the appellant had received payment in his bank account from M/s Indian Traders, M/s Kolkata Suppliers and M/s Radhey Enterprises with whom he had no business transaction. He had not received the payment in his bank account from the account of Ajay Kumar Jain but through non-existing companies whose bank acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the Charge sheet dated 30.1.2017, CBI found that Sh. Sanjay Jain (A-2), has been running sale Tax Consultancy office since 1995. His main work is to facilitate proprietary firms registered under Sales Tax Department by obtaining details from party. In course of his business, he fraudulently opened 3 proprietary firms, namely, M/s Ganesh International, prop. Sh. Ahok Kumar MurarilalHada, M/s Indian Traders, prop. Sh. Ashok Kumar MurarilalHada, M/s Indian Traders, prop. Ms. Devangna Tiwari and M/s Kolkata Suppliers, prop. Sh. NandKishor Singh. PAN cards and photographs of the original persons were used for making them proprietors without their knowledge and consent. Sh. Amitesh Kumar Sinha (A-1) joined at Axis Bank, Burrrabazar Branch, Kolkata as Deputy Manager on 23.11.2005 and remain posted there till 07.12.2016 (arrested on 08.12.2016). He was transferred to Singur Branch of Axis Bank on 14.07.2017 from where he resigned from service on 10.08.2017. His resignation was accepted by the Bank and relieved from Bank on 07.11.2017. His main duty as Deputy Manager at Axis Bank, Burrabazar Branch was to manage and facilitate customers of current account, to handle forex customers, to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k, Burrabazar Branch, Kolkata. (v) GEQD opinion also confirmed that the questioned Pay-in-slips, cheques, RTGS forms authorization letter have not been signed by the actual person Ms. Devangna Tiwari. 12. The detailed charge sheet has not been quoted which otherwise refers further facts as to how demonetized money was channelized in the bank accounts of the companies and ultimately it came in the account of appellant. 13. The appellant no doubt submitted the invoices to show supply of cloths to Ajay Kumar Jain but he has not produced any material to show arrangement for payment towards the supply to Ajay Kumar Jain through the bank account of three non-existing companies. The appellant has shown his innocence for receipt of the money towards its supply to Ajay Kumar Jain but it cannot be accepted. The appellant was knowing receipt of money through the firms to whom he never supplied any material. In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order. However, before closing the case, we may observe if the appellant has any issue with Ajay Kumar Jain, it would be open for him to take appropriate legal remedies but we find no reason to cause interference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
