9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The relevant facts of the case briefly are that a case was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Ranchi against that Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi (son of Shri Lal Hemendra Pratap Dehati, residing at Uma Shanti Apartment, Kanke Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand), based on the allegation that after being elected as Member of Jharkhand Legislative Assembly on 13.03.2005 and while working as a Minister of Health and Labour, Government of Jharkhand during the period 07 02.2007 to 12.01.2009 in the Cabinet headed by Shri Madhu Koda, he had acquired properties beyond his known sources of income during the period 13.03.2005 to 24.07.2009. The investigation carried out by CBI, Ranchi in FIR No. RC 5(A)/2010/AHD-Ranchi dated 11.08.2010 u/s 409, 420, 423, 424, 465, 120 B of IPC, section 7, 10, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the scrutiny of the Income Tax Returns of Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi conducted by the Income Tax Department led to the filing of Final Report No. No.07/2011 dated 22.12.2011 invoking section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988 against Shri/Smt. Bhanu Pratap Sahi, Uma Shankar Malviya, Prashant Kumar Singh, Ajay Singh, Anirudh Prata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounting to Rs. 1,15,80,914/- Consequent to the provisional attachment of the above properties, an Original Complaint (OC) was filed before the Ld. AA under Section 5(5) the Act. The Ld. AA, vide its order dated 12.05.2014, confirmed the provisional attachment of the properties in question. Aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. AA confirming the provisional attachment of their properties, the appellants herein have filed these appeals to this Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the Act. FPA/PMLA/592/LKW/2014 4. The appellant in this case is Ms. Chanda Singh who was Defendant No. 16 before the Ld. AA. A piece of land at Hotwasi Hatia Dam site, Khata No.1, Thana No. 232, Plot No. 1132, 1135, 1229 and 1230, Ranchi standing in the name of her husband, late Sh. Ravindra Pratap Singh was provisionally attached vide the PAO issued on 09.12.2013, which was continued by the Ld. AA vide the impugned order. Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant 5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that she is a lady and that she not very well-educated. On receipt of the notice from Ld. AA, she prepared a simple reply in Hindi stating inter alia that the land purchased by her husband was from h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Bhanu Pratap Sahi had generated/obtained money by violating the law of the land and, further, without any evidence that Respondent No.2 had given the money for purchase of the said lands, It is contended that no presumption can be drawn that the said lands were purchased out of "proceeds of crime" 10. It is also contended that the Ld. AA has ignored the fact that there is no reason to believe in the present case to come to a conclusion that proceeds of crime generated by Sh. Bhanu Pratap Sahi has been infused in the purchase of the said lands. That the Ld. AA has not correctly understood the difference between the concepts of "reason to suspect" and "reason to believe". 11. It is further contended that the reasons for attachment given in the impugned order that since there is only one boundary wall surrounding both the properties in the name of late Ravindra Pratap Singh and Smt. Santoshi Devi, hence the property belongs to Bhanu Pratap Sahi is unsustainable and against any logical reasoning. 12. It is also submitted that the actual cost of the property was Rs. 4,37,500/- only and the contention that its actual value was Rs. 1 crore based on the testimony of Shri Arun Kumar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,424,465 &120B of IPC,1860 and Section 7,10,11 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 on the basis of a complaint filed by one Sh. Rajiv Sharma vide Complaint No. 01/09, dated 01.07.2009. This case was taken up for investigation by the Vigilance Department of Ranchi, as per order dated 01.07.2009 of the Ld. Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, passed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. 17. A Public Interest Litigation petition (PIL) 4700 of 2008 was also filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi by one Shri Durga Oraon alleging corrupt practices by Shri Madhu Koda and others. Another, PIL bearing no. 2252 of 2009, was filed by one Shri Aman Munda, making similar allegations against S/Shri Madhu Koda and others, seeking directions of the Hon'ble High Court for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Income Tax Department. Subsequently, Directorate of Enforcement was also made one of the Respondents in the WP (PIL) No. 4700 of 2008. 18. The Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand vide order dated 04/08/2010 in WP (PIL) No. 4700/2008, transferred the investigations in Jharkhand Vigilance Case No. 09/09 to the CBI. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lative Assembly on 13.03.2005 and while working as a Minister of Health and Labour, Government of Jharkhand, during the check period. 22. It is submitted that a total of Rs. 7,97,96,888/- (including indirect benefit in the form of rent derived on property acquired through Proceeds of Crime), is involved in the offence of money laundering invested by the accused with the assistance/aid of other co-accused in the form of movable and immovable properties, which is Proceed of Crime in terms of Section 2(1) (u) of the PMLA, 2002. 23. During the investigation, it was also revealed that out of the total Proceeds of Crime, one piece of land at Hotwasi Hatia Dam Site, Ranchi valued at Rs. 4,61,018/- had been purchased by Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi in the name of his sister's son-in-law, Ravindra Pratap Singh during the said check period. The said Shri Ravindra Pratap has since passed away and the matter is now contested by the present appellant, Smt. Chanda Singh. 24. It is submitted that Ravindra Pratap Singh could not be examined since he had died in a road accident. Sh. Basanteshwari Prasad, seller of the land to Ravindra Pratap Singh vides Sale Deed Number, 15980/14141 dated 02.08.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no allegation in the charge-sheet filed in the scheduled offence case or in the prosecution complaint that the unaccounted cash deposited by the Appellant is the result of criminal activity, will not come to the aid of the Appellant......." 27. With regard to the admissibility of evidence in light of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, reliance is placed upon the decision in R. Janakiraman v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2006 I AD (Cr.) S.C.85, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: "...it is clear that the bar with section 92 will apply to a proceeding inter-parties to a document and not to a criminal proceeding, where the prosecution is trying to prove that a particular document set of documents are fictitious documents created to offer an explanation for disproportionate wealth. Oral evidence can always be led to show that a transaction under a particular document or set of documents is sham or fictitious or nominal, not intended to be acted upon." 28. The respondent contends that actions of the Directorate were strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. The reasons to believe that the properties attached are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o show is that there was "substantially probably cause" to form opinion that the property adverted to by the Authorities below do indicate that there was substantially probable cause to form such opinion. At this provisional attachment stage as well when the matter goes before the Adjudicating Authority, by virtue of section 24 of the Act of 2002 the burden of proving that the property possessed by the notices was not proceeds of crime and where untainted properties would be on them." Reliance is also placed by the respondents on the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in B. Rama Raju v. UOI & Others (2011 SCC OnLine AP 152) wherein it was held as follows: "Para 73. Held, where property is in ownership. Control or person of period not accused of having committed an offence under Section 3 and where such property/ proceeds of crime is part of inter-connected transactions involved in money laundering, then and in such event presumption enjoined in Section 23 comes into operation and not inherence of burden of proof under Secton 24 of Act - Therefore, person other than one accused of having committed offence under Section 3 is not imposed the burden of proof enjoin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sserting to have acted bonafide or having legitimate interest will have to be inquired into and adjudicated upon only by the special court." Based on the above contentions, the Respondent Directorate has prayed that instant appeal be dismissed, being devoid of merits. Analysis & Findings 31. I have given careful consideration to the material on record and the rival submissions of the parties. It is not in doubt in the present case that Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi stands accused of charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1960 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which are scheduled offences under the PMLA, 2002. As per the Final Report filed by the CBI before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi had acquired disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 6,99,95,964/- during the check period from 13.03.2005 to 24.07.2009 which amounted to 3217.29 percent of his income during the period from salary and other known sources of income. If indirect benefit in the form of rent derived on property acquired through Proceeds of Crime are included, the amount would be to the tune of Rs. 7,97,96,888/-. 32. The allegation is that aforesaid disproportionate assets were acqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty. Furthermore, the respondents have pointed out that even if the income declared in the above ITRs (Rs.5,51,260/-, including other income Rs.1,66,760/- and agricultural income Rs. 3,84,500/-) is taken at face value, it is still not sufficient to cover the actual value of the purchase of the above land to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- for which reliable evidence has been found during investigations by way of an agreement to sell dated 20.05.2008 entered on non- judicial Stamp Paper No. OIAA 784150 in respect of the above immovable properties. On being confronted, Sh. Basanteshwari Prasad, one of the two sellers confirmed the veracity of the said agreement. 34. Having considered the material on record and the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, I do not find any cogent evidence that the property was acquired out of known sources of income. The appellant has claimed various sources of income, including substantial agricultural income, rental income, contract work etc., but no reliable proof has been adduced in respect of any of these. ITRs have been filed belatedly, after investigations began and even considering the best case scenario of the returns being accepted at face ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It also includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located. In its landmark judgment in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [SLP (Criminal) No. 4634 of 2014, Order dated 27.07.2022] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: 65. .......... "The sweep of Section 5(1) is not limited to the accused named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It would apply to any person (not necessarily being accused in the scheduled offence), if he is involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime." 37. Insofar as the issue whether the property was 'benami' property or not is concerned, the same is not very material in my view since action for the attachment of the property in this case was initiated under the PMLA, 2002 and the legality or otherwise of the said action also has to be adjudged under the provisions of that Act only, and not under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The appellant has also assailed the observation in the impugned order that since there is only one boundary wall surrounding both the properties in the name of late Ravindra P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the subject land was Rs. 1 crore. It appears from the text that credence has been given by the respondent Directorate to the said statement as otherwise the said statement need not have been referred to in the order. However, paragraph 22 of the order discusses in detail the statement of Sh. Basanteswari Prasad (one of the two joint-sellers of the subject land to the appellant's late husband), to the effect that he and his brother actually received a consideration of Rs. 60,00,000/- against the amount of Rs. 4,37,500/- recorded in the sale deed. This amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- is once again mentioned in Para 23 wherein it is stated that even the extent of income declared in the ITRs are to the tune of Rs.5,51,260/- (other income Rs.1,66,760 and agricultural income Rs.3,84,500) and Rs.5,88,740/ (other income Rs.1,70,640 and agricultural income Rs.4,18,100) during AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively, is not sufficient to cover the 'actual value' of the purchase of the above land to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/ -. However, the upon perusal of the table in Para 1 (page 4) it is seen that the property has actually been attached for a value of Rs. 4,61,018/only. Had that been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce from CBI. 45. It is submitted that the order of the Ld. AA has ignored the definition of 'proceed of crime' under PMLA, 2002. 'Proceed 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 value or such property. In the absence of any evidence, direct or indirect to show that Sh. Bhanu Pratap Sahi had generated/obtained money by violating the law of the land and further without any evidence that he had given the money for purchase of the said lands, no presumption can be drawn that the said lands were purchased out of 'proceeds of crime'. It is further contended that there was no 'reason to believe' in the present case and that the Ld. AA has not correctly understood the difference between the concepts of "reason to suspect" and "reason to believe". It is also contended that the Ld. AA has presumed that the land in question is benami property of Sh. Sahi merely because the appellant is a relative of Sh. Sahi and this fact alone does not allow the prosecution to draw an inference that the money belonged to Sh. Sahi. Further, there are no charges und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been made on behalf of the Appellant : 50. That ITRs can be furnished at any time before the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year. 51. That the appellant had herein stated before CBI stating that she had taken a loan of the Rs. 2,00,000/- which was arranged by Sh. Pankaj Kumar, a friend/ colleague of Shri Anirudh Pratap Sengar. The loan was taken by her husband from Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. Pankaj Kumar denied it on account of threat from the CBI. Furthermore, the said statement, even if it had been made by the appellant, was inadmissible in evidence. 52. That the appellant, in her statement dated 25.01.2012 under section 50 had stated that she is a housewife and gets income from dairy farming both from paternal and natural houses. 53. That appellant had got a sell receipt for sell of jewellery Rs. 4,50,000/- to Kanchan Jewellers, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh which was seized by the CBI during search. 54. That the appellant took loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from her mother who runs a dairy farm and is also having agricultural income from land of her late husband. 55. That the husband of the appellant on the regular pay roll of Hindalco Muri and his annual average in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arranged Rs 3,00,000 as loan from her mother. 60. The respondents have further pointed out that in the charge-sheet filed by the CBI wherein the appellant Santoshi Devi is one the accused (A-6), it is inter-alia mentioned that the deal for purchase of land was actually negotiated by Sh. U.S Malviya (A-2), the then OSD to Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi; that Sh. Anirudh Pratap Sengar, the appellant's husband, was a lowly-placed employee of Hindalco, Muri and did not have the financial capability to purchase the said property; that the claim of loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Shri Pankaj Kumar was false; and that the jeweller to whom the jewellery was claimed to have been sold by the appellant for Rs 4,50,000/- denied that jewellery was sold to him by the appellant. On the contrary, he stated that jewellery worth Rs 4,50,000/- was actually purchased by the appellant from him. 61. Furthermore, upon scrutiny of the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) submitted by the appellant in course of her statement dated 25.01.2013 under Section 50 of PMLA, the following facts were noticed in respect of the ITR for the Assessment Year 2009-10 (relating to financial year 2008-2009 in which the subject properties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the property under attachment is proceeds of crime" 65. As regards the argument that there are no charges under Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 of holding benami properties either on Respondent No. 2 or on the Appellant either in the FIR or in the chargesheet filed by the CBI dated 22.12.2011 and such allegations are not in accordance with law and not tenable, the respondent has cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Som Prakash v. State of Delhi (1974) 4 SCC 84 wherein it was held: " ....... Of course, our social milieu is so vitiated by a superstitious belief that any official can be activised by illegal gratification, so confidential is the technique of give and take in which the whitecollar offender is adept and so tough is the forensic problem of proof beyond reasonable doubt by good testimony in this area, that the only hope of tracking down the tricky officers is by laying traps and creating statutory presumptions. Even Kautilya has stated that "just as fish moving under water cannot possibly be found out either as drinking or not drinking water so government servants cannot be found out while taking money. Ex cathedra condemnation of al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e OC filed before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. 70. With regard to the submission of the appellant that the statement given u/s 50 of the PMLA has stated that she is a housewife and gets income from dairy farming both from her paternal and maternal houses and declared her income from business, the respondents state that the appellant is trying to mislead the Hon'ble Tribunal as the appellant, in course of her statement u/s 50 of the PMLA, has categorically stated her profession as housewife and nowhere in the statement has she stated that she is getting income from dairy farming. 71. It is who pointed out that the claim of loan by the appellant from her mother is also not reflected in the ITR of the appellant for the relevant period. The fact of non-reflection of loan has also been admitted by the appellant in her statement u/s 50 of the PMLA. The loan was stated to have been taken in cash. In the absence of documentary evidence, the plea of loan of Rs. 3 lakhs by the appellant from her mother is a mere conjecture. 72. With regard to the contention of the Appellant that "the Appellant had an income from dairy farming." The Respondent contends that the ITRs have been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttachment Order and the order dated 12.05.2014 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority are based on the evidences gathered in the investigation by the Respondent No 1. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the order of the Ld. AA is sustainable and the present appeal be dismissed. Analysis and Findings 78. I have given careful consideration to the material on record and the rival contentions of the parties. It is not in doubt in the present case that Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi stands accused of charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1960 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which are scheduled offences under the PMLA, 1999. As per the Final Report filed by the CBI before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi had acquired disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 6,99,95,964/- during the check period from 13.03.2005 to 24.07.2009 which amounted to 3217.29 percent of his income during the period from salary and other known sources of income. If indirect benefit in the form of rent derived on property acquired through Proceeds of Crime are included, the amount would be to the tune of Rs. 7,97,96,888/-. 79. The allegation is that aforesaid disproportion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that the appellant had never claimed before CBI that she took any loan from the Sh Pankaj Kumar. It is also contended that the appellant in her statement before ED on 25.01.2013 had categorically stated that she had received Rs. 4,50,000/- from Kanchan Jewellers, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. The appellant had got the sale receipt which was seized by the CBI during the search but the same has not been relied upon by the CBI. 81. Without getting into veracity of the factual contentions from either side, I find that the explanation which the appellant presently stands by is that out of the total consideration of Rs. 14,55,000/-, Rs. 4,50,000/- was arranged by sale of old jewellery, Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of loan from her mother and the remaining amount was out of her 'streedhan'. I find that no reliable proof has been furnished by the appellant in respect of any of the above. It is contended that the receipt for sale of jewellery was seized and taken away by the CBI and the same has not been relied upon by them. In other words, the relevant proof is not available with the appellant at present, the same having been taken away by CBI as per the appellant. Nor is it a part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contention that the Ld. AA has not considered the definition of "proceeds of crime" under PMLA, 2002. Even at the relevant time (prior to the amendments of 2015 and 2019), the definition of proceeds of crime took within its sweep any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person "as a result of" criminal activity "relating to" a scheduled offence and even "the value of any such property". The term property was also very widely defined to mean property of every kind, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible. It also includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located. In its landmark judgment in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [SLP (Criminal) No. 4634 of 2014, Order dated 27.07.2022] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: 65. .......... "The sweep of Section 5(1) is not limited to the accused named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It would apply to any person (not necessarily being accused in the scheduled offence), if he is involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime." 85. It is a well-se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the name of private limited companies at Delhi, equal to the value of loans and advances taken from Sonanchal Buildcon and Angesh Trading, valued in all at Rs. 1,40,72,000/- (iii) 7 immovable properties acquired by certain companies after receipt of loans and advances from M/s Sonanchal Buildcon and M/s Angesh Trading being relatable to proceeds of crime valued in all at Rs. 2,11,44,000/- (iv) Movable Properties (bank account balances) of M/s Sonanchal Buildcon and M/s Angesh Trading in 4 accounts with Bank of Maharashtra, Dayanand Vihar, Maharashtra total Rs. 1,15,80,914/-.The attachment of the aforementioned properties was duly confirmed by the Ld. AA through the impugned order. Facts in Brief 90. The relevant facts as recorded in the impugned order briefly are that the Final Report dated 22.12.2011 of the CBI, Ranchi, revealed that with regard to investment in the two companies (the appellants herein), all the initial dealings for taking over of these two companies was done by one Shri Ajay Singh, who was found to be a close friend of Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi. Shri Prashant Kumar, one of the Directors in both the companies and nephew of Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi, was also Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llotted in the books of account on 31.03.2011, i.e., after the registration of FIR by the CBI on 11.08.2010, though the share application money has been received during the period 08.01.2008 to 24.03.2009. Investigations revealed that in fact no such shares were issued to/received by the entities who had provided the share application money. 92. Furthermore, the shares of both the Sonanchal Buildcon and Angesh Trading are shown to have been allotted at a premium of Rs. 490/- per share on 31.03.2011 as against earning per share (EPS) of Rs. 36.57 and Rs. 1.43 respectively, during FY 2010-11 as reflected in the statutory returns filed by the companies before the Registrar of Companies (RoC) which defies economic logic. 93. During the course of investigation under PMLA, 2002, Sh. Ankit Goel, CA and authorized representative of M/s Atul Jalan Portfolio and Finance Pvt. Ltd., M/s Raj Rani Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mridul Securities Pvt. Ltd. was examined u/s 50 of the PMLA on 04/05.10.2012 and he accepted that M/s Sonanchal Buildcon P. Ltd. and M/s Angesh Trading Co. P. Ltd. did not issue any share certificates to M/s Atul Jalan Portfolio and Finance Pvt. Ltd. as money in cash was paid to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailable in the books of account of the said Delhi-based after receipt of the loans and advances from Sonanchal and Angesh and, therefore, carried the taint of proceeds of crime, the properties acquired by the companies were treated as having the taint of proceeds of crime and were accordingly attached under section 5 of the PMLA, 2002. 97. Accordingly, for the reasons summarized above, the properties mentioned in Para-1 (supra) were attached. Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant 98. Detailed submissions have been made on behalf of the Appellant. It is firstly informed that at present only one Director, namely, Shri Abhishek Singh is alive in both the abovesaid companies and the active director of both the companies, Mr. Prashant Singh has expired, and that the present appeal was filed through Suman Jha who being authorized representative of Appellant was competent to file the present Appeal and swear affidavit. 99. It is contended that the Ld. AA has ignored the fact that there is no reason to "believe" in the present case to come to a conclusion that the present Appellant company whose directors are nephews of Mr. Bhanu Pratap Sahi has been infused with proceeds of crime gener ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in the absence of any link between the Appellant's property and scheduled offence the present order of attachment is unsustainable in eyes of law and as such deserves to be set aside. 105. It is also contended that that there is no iota of evidence on record that the funds infused in the Appellant company belongs to Bhanu Pratap Sahi. Based on the above submissions, the Appellant has prayed that the order of confirmation passed in PAO No.347 of 2013 in ECIR No./02/PAT/2009/AD whereby and whereunder the Ld. AA has confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order passed against the Appellants be set aside. Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent Directorate 106. The counsel on behalf of the Respondent has strongly contested the arguments and contentions put forward by the counsel on behalf of the Appellant. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the investigation conducted under PMLA, 2002 has confirmed that Sh. Bhanu Pratap Sahi, with the assistance of the co-accused persons, acquired Proceeds of Crime to the tune of Rs. 7,97,96,888/-, out of which Rs. 6,06,35,000/- has been channelized through two of his front companies, M/s Sonanchal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Angesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jalan, Director of M/s Atul Jalan Portfolio & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd, in course of his statement dated 23.11.2012, admitted the following: (a) M/s Raj Rani Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mridul Securities Pvt. Ltd. are sister concerns of M/s Atul Jalan Portfolio & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. (b) That he looked after the day to day working of the sister concerns of this company (c) That the cash amount, along with 0.05% commission was passed on to one Sh. Arun Gopal Bansal (d) Sh. Arun Gopal Bansal managed the cheques from various grain merchants of Delhi by way of application for allotment of shares to grain merchants from the sister concerns of Sh. Atul Jalan (e) Various grain merchants of Delhi remitted money by way of cheque transfers from their banks to the bank account of the concerns of Sh. Atul Jalan, after receipt of cash (f) From the bank accounts of the concerns of Sh. Atul Jalan, cheques were remitted to the bank accounts of M/s Sonanchal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Angesh Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (g) Share certificates were not received by Sh. Atul Jalan as his interest was secured by way of receipt of cash 110. The investigation has revealed that Sh. Ankur Mittal, Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents have prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. Analysis and Findings 115. I have given careful consideration to the facts on record and the rival submissions of the parties. The first contention of the appellant is that the Ld. AA has ignored the fact that there is no reason to "believe" in the present case to come to a conclusion that the present Appellant company whose directors are nephews of Mr. Bhanu Pratap Sahi has been infused with proceeds of crime generated by Mr. Sahi. It is submitted that the Ld. AA has not correctly understood the difference between the concepts of "reason to suspect" and "reason to believe". I do not find any merit in this contention. As is evident from the facts summarized in paragraphs 90 to 96 above, the investigation conducted by the respondent directorate in this case has managed to establish the modus operandi adopted for the layering and integration of the proceeds of crime, duly substantiated by the statements of witnesses and other evidence. It is inter alia pointed out that the initial dealings for taking over of these two companies was done by one Shri Ajay Singh, who was a close friend of Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi. Shri Prashan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and M/s Angesh Trading Co. P. Ltd. did not issue any share certificates to M/s Atul Jalan Portfolio and Finance Pvt. Ltd. as money in cash was paid to the company with the request to adjust the same amount of money to the accounts of M/s Sonanchal Buildcon and M/s Angesh Trading against commission of 0.01% on the total amount of the adjustment. Also, the share certificates were not received by M/s Raj Rani because equivalent amount of cash plus 0.1% commission in cash was paid to M/s Raj Rani Securities by M/s Sonanchal Buildcon and Angesh Trading, prior to making application for allotment of shares. The director of M/s Atul Jalan Portfolio & Finance Co. P. Ltd., Sh. Atul Jalan agreed with the statement given by Sh. Ankit Goel. 117. Similarly, M/s Magic Buildwell (P) Ltd., upon receipt of two transfers of Rs. 20 lakhs and 18 lakhs respectively, issued two drafts of equal value on 30.01.2008 in favour of Angesh Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. This was admitted by Shri Ankur Mittal, Director of M/s Magic Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Investigations revealed that this company was a paper company operating solely for the purpose of providing accommodation entry against receipt of cash. 118. The above f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue any share certificates to M/s Atul Jalan Portfolio and Finance Pvt. Ltd. as money in cash was paid to the company with the request to adjust the same amount of money to the accounts of M/s Sonanchal Buildcon and M/s Angesh Trading against commission of 0.01% on the total amount of the adjustment, and that share certificates were not received by M/s Raj Rani because equivalent amount of cash plus 0.1% commission in cash was paid to M/s Raj Rani Securities by M/s Sonanchal Buildcon and Angesh Trading, prior to making application for allotment of shares and that the said statement was concurred with by Sh. Atul Jalan; and that similarly, M/s Magic Buildwell (P) Ltd., upon receipt of two transfers of Rs. 20 lakhs and 18 lakhs respectively, issued two drafts of equal value on 30.01.2008 in favour of Angesh Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. which was admitted by Shri Ankur Mittal, Director of M/s Magic Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. 121. It is also contended that there is no link, either direct and indirect, to even suggest that the said investment in the present Appellant company was done by the illegal money generated by Mr. Bhanu Pratap Sahi. The presumption of authorities below that the Appellant com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties should not be declared to be the properties involved in money-laundering and confiscated by the Central Government. Further, the presumption in inter-connected transactions under Section 23 as also the presumption under Section 24 is against the appellant. Considering the provisions of Section 8(1), 23 and 24, the burden of proof in this regard under law was squarely upon the appellant which has remained undischarged. 125. Having considered the facts before me, therefore, I am of the view that enough material has been brought on record by the respondents to confirm the attachment of the subject properties. It may be added here that under the PMLA, 2002, attachment is an interim measure whose purpose is to protect the property until the guilt or otherwise of the accused is established. The only implication of attachment is that it prohibits transfer, conversion, disposition or movement of property. It does not alter the situation on the ground with regard to the ownership or possession of the property. 126. In light of the above discussions, I do not find any reasons to interfere wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
