9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short, "Act of 2002") with respect to CBI cases. 4. The complaint on file No. 28/2023 was submitted on 05.12.2023 accompanied with an application on file No. 297/2023 submitted by Directorate of Enforcement (ED) for considering the date of institution of the said complaint to be the date on which the complaint was first instituted by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) before the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu (also a designated PMLA Court under the Act of 2002) i.e., 06.09.2023 which was declined from being entertained by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu by virtue of an order dated 20.10.2023 requiring the presentation of the said complaint before the competent court in accordance with law thereby returning the complaint to the Special Public Prosecutor of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED). 5. The court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption (CBI cases) Jammu though actually came to be presented with the complaint on 04.11.2023 accompanied with an application on file No. 297/2023 but its actual entertainment came to take place on 05.12.2023 relating the institution of the complaint ante-dated to be 06.09.2023 when it was first presented t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 08.12.2017 (ii) 36A/2018 dated 09.05.2018 (iii) 36B/2018 dated 01.10.2018 (iv) 36C/2019 dated 24.10.2019 10. All the aforesaid four chargesheets were presented for alleged commission of offences under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/474 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3/5/29 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur in which the principal accused are Rahul Grover, Mohh. Zubair and others whose names are not to be found out from the record of the present petition or for that matter of the complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED). 11. Following the heels of the said development in the State of Rajasthan, a report No. Home/AR/151/2017 dated 11.05.2018 from the Home Department, Govt. of the then State of Jammu and Kashmir purportedly pertaining with the cases of fraudulent and illegally issued gun licences in the course of period from 2012-2016, came into being which resulted in registration of two FIRs, namely, an FIR No. 11 of 2018 dated 17.05.2018 registered by the Vigilance Organization Jammu (VOJ) and an FIR No. 18/2018 dated 18.05.2018 registered by the Vigilance Organization Kashmir (VOK). 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idential premises i.e., H.No. 1 A/C-C, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu of the petitioner No. 2 on 24.03.2022 purportedly making seizure of items/properties in connection with CBI's FIR No. RCCHG0512018S007 dated 17.10.2018. 19. With respect to FIR No. RCCHG0512018S007 dated 17.10.2018, two Final Police Reports/Chargesheets No. 01/2022 and 02/2022, both dated 30.06.2022, came to be presented before of the court of law against the concerned District Magistrates of the time of Kulgam District, judicial clerks and the private persons. The said two chargesheets do not name the petitioners in any manner and in any capacity whatsoever. 20. Similarly, with respect to its FIR No. RCCHG0512018S006 dated 16.10.2018, the CBI, Chandigarh came forward with presentation of five Final Police Reports/Chargesheets before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI Cases), Jammu. The said chargesheets are: (i) 31 of 2022 dated 30.11.2022 (ii) 32 of 2022 dated 30.11.2022 (iii) 33 of 2022 dated 30.11.2022 (iv) 34 of 2022 dated 14.12.2022 (v) 35 of 2022 dated 14.12.2022 21. The aforesaid five chargesheets came to be presented against the alleged delinquent District Magistrates, Additional District Magistra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24. Thus, in none of the afore-listed chargesheets, the petitioners figure in any manner by any reference much less as accused therein and as such are to be said in the eyes of law unrelated with the aforementioned criminal cases so generated out of two original FIRs i.e., 11 of 2018 and 18 of 2018 later re-numbered by the CBI, Chandigarh and resulting in presentation of final police reports/chargesheets. 25. In its complaint so presented by the complainant- Directorate of Enforcement (ED), it came to name twenty one (21) accused persons/concerns which are enlisted as under: Rahul Grover Accused No. 1 Rajeev Ranjan Accused No. 2 Gajan Singh Accused No. 3 Itrat Hussain Rafiqui Accused No. 4 Tariq Athar Beigh Accused No. 5 Zumurad Hussain Shah Accused No. 6 Syed Adeel Hussain Shah Accused No. 7 Syed Akeel Shah Accused No. 8 Abid Hussain Shah Accused No. 9 Madan Mohan Bhargav Accused No. 10 (petitioner No. 2 herein) Mukesh Bhargav Accused No. 11 Devi Dayal Khajuria Accused No. 12 Kumar Jyoti Ranjan Accused No. 13 JAP Infratech Private Limited Accused No. 14 Kripa Shankar Roy Accused No. 15 Gaganpreet Singh Accused No. 16 Hunney Preet Singh Accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of witnesses enlisted in Annexure-B. 28. In the backdrop of an over view of the complaint so derived hereinabove, the petitioners came forward complaining that when in none of the aforesaid FIRs and the chargesheets borne out of them they were and/or are related with alleged commission of any alleged offences to figure as accused persons investigated and chargesheeted by the CBI, Chandigarh, then the jurisdiction exercised by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to implicate the petitioners in the case is nothing but usurpation of the jurisdiction of booking the petitioners without any statutory basis leaving the petitioners clueless as to by reference to which culpable statement of facts they have been booked in the company of nineteen (19) other accused persons with whom they have no privity of transaction. 29. The complaint, in the context of the petitioners, proceeds with its first reference made to the petitioners' searches and surveys conducted during the course of investigation under section 17(1) of the Act of 2002. 30. From the said search and survey, Indian Currency amounting to Rs. 93,50,000/- and gold items weighing 1765 gms were seized; list of fifteen (15) bank a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of 2002, the reference with respect to the petitioner No. 2 is in para 9.2 wherein gold jewellery weighing 1765 gms is said to be recovered from the residential house of the petitioner No. 2 and seven (07) arms licences in original were found and seized during search thereby relating it to the petitioner No. 2. 37. Under paragraph 11 "Specific role of the accused/co-accused/persons abetting the commission of offence of money laundering by directly/indirectly attempting to indulge or knowingly assisting or knowingly being a party or being involved in concealment/possession/acquisition or use in projecting or claiming Proceeds of Crime as untainted property in terms of Section 3 of PMLA", the reference to petitioner No. 2 is under para 11.10 whereby the petitioner No. 2 is alleged to have, in the guise of his various firms authorized to keep/sale/purchase of arms and ammunition, illegally and fraudulently indulged in issuance of arms licences for army personnel in lieu of monetary benefits to the petitioner No. 2 and his family members and also used various bank accounts of firms related to him and his family members to receive illegal funds/commissions generated out of criminal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
