9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of wealth, which could not have been from his known source of income. In the CBI case after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against one Samiran Kumar Mondal. On the prayer of the Enforcement Directorate initially a provisional order of attachment was passed by the adjudicating authority on 01.10.2019. It subsequently came to be confirmed on 19.03.2020. After completion of their enquiry the Enforcement Directorate lodged a complaint against the petitioner and his relatives before the learned Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act on 25.08.2020 which was registered as ML Case No. 10 of 2020. Although the Inspectors and/or the officials of the Provident Fund authorities were supposed to hold inspection at the business establishment as planned and guided by the recommendation made by Shram Suvidha Portal, the petitioner and his subordinates allegedly held inspection at random in various establishments without the recommendation of the said Portal. With regard to the disproportionate assets amassed by the petitioner and his relatives, the CBI also registered a case being RC012018A0012 dated 19.11.2018 for having assets to the tune of Rs. 56,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,89,50,536/- whereas at the time of registration of the First Information Report, the CBI brought it down to Rs. 56,47,789/- and at the time of filing of the Closure Report, it came down to Rs. 9,88,978/- which as per the CBI was 8.25% of the income of the petitioner and his family members from all known sources of income. Reliance was placed on the judgement reported in Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 816. The petitioner's argument was based on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary and Ors. Vs UOI and Ors., (2022) SCC Online SC 929 wherein it was held that if the allegations of the scheduled offences were obliterated in the eye of law being in the form of acquittal, quashment, then the proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act on the basis of such scheduled offences would also come to its legal death. In absence of accusation of any scheduled offences, there could not be any existence of a proceeding under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. In the instant case the CBI had initiated a proceeding under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Samiran Kumar Mondal in which cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the name and style of M/s Ghosh Engineering Co., a proprietorship firm. The said complaint was made against Samiran Kumar Mondal, Enforcement Officer, SRO, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Employees Provident Fund Organisation (hereinafter also referred to as "EPFO"), Park Street, Kolkata, for demanding bribe. A trap was laid by the CBI and the suspected officer Samiran Kumar Mondal was arrested red-handed while taking bribe (FIR No. RC0102017A0021 dated 11/09/2017). A Charge Sheet in the FIR No. RC 0102017A0021 dated 11.09.2017 was filed by CBI, ACB, Kolkata vide No. 35/2017 dated 27.12.2017 under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against Samiran Kumar Mondal, the then Enforcement Officer, Employee's Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, Park Street, Kolkata, for demanding illegal gratification of Rs. 30,000/- from one Ashok Ghosh, proprietor of M/s Ghosh Engineering Co. and father of Avinandan Ghosh and subsequently, accepting amount of Rs. 20,000/- as the demanded bribe amount. On the basis of CBI FIR No. RC 0102017A0021 dated 11.09.2017, investigation under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ences of money laundering, and the case was being tried in CBI Court 1, Bankshall Court, Kolktata. Cognizance of the same was also taken by the learned Special Court under PMLA, necessary eviction notices under sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the PMLA dated 25.05.2022 were also issued against the properties belonging to the family members of the petitioner. Even though the petitioner was not initially named an accused in CBI FIR No. RC 0102017A0021 dated 11.09.2017, but during the course of investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), it was seen that EPFO officials were not allowed to undertake inspection at different business establishments at random, but inspections were planned and guided by the recommendations made by the "Shram Subidha" portal. It was also seen that the petitioner and his team, including Samiran Kumar Mondal, Enforcement Officer, had made random inspections in different companies without any recommendation made in the said portal. Ajitesh Kumar, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, in his letter dated 06.07.2018 vide No. EPFO/RO/P.St./Adm/AVS/Part/Vol-I/584/898 provided a detailed list of inspections done without recommendation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as an accused in the predicate offence because the offence under the PMLA is a standalone offence and is different and distinct from the predicate offence". Meanwhile, CBI, ACB, Kolkata, lodged another FIR, vide number RC0102018A0012 dated 19.11.2018 against the petitioner and his wife, Sangita Singh, under Sections 13(2) and 13 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After preliminary investigation in the mater, it was learnt that the petitioner had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, to the tune of Rs. 56,47,789/-, which the petitioner had not been able to account for satisfactorily. However, the said FIR was closed by the CBI whereupon the case was also closed by the learned Court. The ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., as reported in 2022 SCC Online Sc 929 and J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy vs. Directorate of Enforcement as reported in (2022) 7 SCC 370, to the extent it related to predicate offences i.e., the accused being discharged/acquitted in scheduled offences leading to a conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said accused would get similar benefit in the case under the PML Act. 8. Admittedly, the present proceeding under the PML Act relates to predicate offences in a case instituted by the CBI, which has not been dropped and/or quashed. It is still pending. It is a different thing that in the said parent case, the petitioner has still been shown as witness. The proposition of law that an accused in a PML Act case need not be an accused in the predicate offences case covers this issue. 9. The proceeding that has been dropped is an independent one that was started against the petitioner on charges, inter alia, of amassing disproportionate assets. This case too was initiated by the CBI. But, the instant PMLA proceeding does not owe its origin to the purported predicate offences contained in such subsequent case started by the CBI. Therefore, the dropping of such subsequent proceeding would hardly have much bearing on the PML Act case started in respect of first case concerning predicate offences. 10. It is also contended by the petitioner that parking of money fraudulently obtained by the accused in the first predicate offences case has not been alleged in clear terms in the present P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
