9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int reads as under: 3. An ECIR bearing No. 18/2022 was recorded on the basis of the FIR bearing No. 141 of 2022 dated 04.06.2022, lodged at Bariyatu police station, Ranchi Jharkhand under sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, 1860, against Pradeep Bagchi on the basis of complaint of one Sri Dilip Sharma, Tax Collector, Ranchi Municipal Corporation for submission of forged papers i.e. Aadhar Card, Electricity Bill and Possession letter for obtaining holding number 0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5. Investigation revealed that by submitting the forged documents, a holding number was obtained in name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19, Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring 455.00 decimals approx. 4. Investigation further revealed that the above property belonged to Late B.M. Laxman Rao which was given to the Army and had been in the possession of the Defence, in occupation of the Army since independence. Investigation reveals that by way of creating a fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was sold to one company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for which the consideration amount was shown Rs. 7 crores which was highly under v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judge for grant of his bail which was dismissed vide order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned AJC-I-Cum Special Judge, PMLA at Ranchi. 12. Hence the present application has been preferred for the grant of bail. Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner: 13. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued inter alia on the following grounds: (i) If the entire ECIR will be taken into consideration, there is no reason to believe which is the primary requirement for making arrest of a person said to be involved in commission of offence under the Act, 2002 as per the provision of Section 19 (1) of the Act, 2002. (ii) Further, at the time of arrest the condition stipulated under Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002 has not been followed and the ground of arrest has not been provided, in writing, as required to be provided under the provision of Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002 coupled with the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors., [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 : (2024) 7 SCC 576]; V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State Represented by Deputy Director & Ors. [(2024) 3 SCC 51; Prabir Purka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tea Estate Pvt. (viii) Since, the accused petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the said Property and does not have any stake in M/s. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., no presumption can be drawn for acquisition of the said Property by the accused petitioner in the name of M/s. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. being beneficial owner of the said company. (ix) There is no document/material available on record to implicate the petitioner for forging and manipulating the title deeds being Deed of Sale No. 4369 dated 11.10.1932 of the property in question in the office of Registrar of Assurances at Kolkata. (x) There is nothing on record to suggest, even remotely, that any conversation and/or communication and/or correspondence was ever exchanged between the petitioner on the one hand and accused Pradeep Bagchi and other accused persons on the other hand, who were involved in forging the title deeds of the said Property to project title of the said Property as that of accused Pradeep Bagchi. Nor is there any allegation and/or material on record to suggest that there was any monetary transaction between the petitioner and the other accused persons. (xi) Further, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , submission has been made that the petitioner has been communicated with the reason of arrest, the day when he was taken into custody i.e., on 07.06.2023. Hence, the provision of Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002 has fully been complied with. Further, when the petitioner was produced before the Special Judge, PMLA on 08.06.2023, he did not complain regarding non-supply of grounds of arrest or about any ill-treatment against the arrest. (iii) The learned Special Judge has specifically recorded in order dated 08.06.2023 that the information of arrest has been given to their family members and at the time of passing of order learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Bidhyut Chourasia and Abhishek Agarwal were also present. (iv) The arrest of the petitioner, therefore, is in consonance with the interpretation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra); Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra); V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State Represented by Deputy Director & Ors. (supra); Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [2024 SCC OnLine SC 934] or in the case of Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -accused) by relying upon the report which is based upon a forged deed planted in Registrar of Assurance Office, Kolkata and the same was done under the instruction of the Petitioner. Petitioner acquired the property in the name of one of the companies i.e. M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. and acquired the land being aware about the conspiracy to acquire the property by making fake deed no. 4369/1932 and obtaining a preconceived report to verify the forged sale deed planted in the records of the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. (ix) Further, the proceeds of crime are generated wherein a forged deed is relied upon and the transaction was entered into a minuscule rate wherein no actual payment of amount was done. The said act of the petitioner makes his intention and knowledge evidently clear as the Petitioner made the company a front to acquire the said property and evidence shows that the Petitioner and Dilip Ghosh have close associations. (x) So far as the non-fulfilment of the condition as stipulated under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is concerned, the same is also not having substance in view of the fact that the twin conditions, i.e., the Public Prosecutor has been give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i for submission of forged papers in order to obtain holding number 0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5. Further, Investigation revealed that by submitting the forged documents, a holding number was obtained in name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19, Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring 455.00 decimals approx. 20. Investigation further revealed that by way of creating a fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was sold to one company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for which the consideration amount was shown Rs. 7 crores which was highly under value and out of this amount Rs. 7 crores payment amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only were made into the account of said Pradeep Bagchi and rest of the money was falsely shown to be paid through cheques. 21. It has come during investigation that records available at the Circle Officer Bargain, Ranchi along with the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata have been altered and records have been modified to create fictitious owner of the above properties. 22. The Enforcement Directorate upon completion of investigation filed the prosecution complaint under section 45 read with 44 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the prayer for bail has already been adjudicated by this Court and all the issues which have been raised herein by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has already been considered by this court while dismissing the said bail application, further no new ground is available herein, therefore it is not required to consider the prayer for bail of the petitioner a fresh. The learned counsel for the respondent ED has further contended that SLP being SLP (Cr.) No. 6584 of 2024, which has preferred against the said order has also been dismissed as withdrawn. 29. In the aforesaid context this Court thinks fit that for proper appreciation of the present application it would be better to refer relevant paragraphs of the order dated 01.03.2024 passed in B.A. No. 7343 of 2023 by which the bail of the present petitioner had been rejected. The relevant paragraph of aforesaid order is being quoted as under: "36. Now coming to the ground as has been raised on behalf of the petitioner, i.e., i. The condition as stipulated under Section 19 (1) of the Act, 2002 has not been complied with. ii. If the entire ECIR will be taken into consideration, there is no reason to believe which is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the said order of remanded has not been assailed before any forum which suggest that the petitioner is having no grievance so far as the alleged non-compliance of the provision of Section 19 (1) of the Act, 2002 is concerned" 30. It is thus evident from the perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs that this Court while referring the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) and Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors has observed that even though the petitioner has not argued and that is not the case of the petitioner, i.e., there is no communication of communicating the reason of arrest. It is corroborative from the fact that the petitioner, after arrest under Section 19 (1) has been remanded but the said order of remand has not been assailed before any forum which suggest that the petitioner is having no grievance so far as the alleged non-compliance of the provision of Section 19 (1) of the Act, 2002 is concerned. Further, this Court while taking into consideration the various paragraph of the prosecution complaint has observed that reason to believe as provided under Section 19 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s again been agitated, hence, in the ends of justice, the same is being considered herein. 35. Before adverting into the merit of the case this Court thinks fit to discuss the provision of law particularly Section 19 as contained under the Act, 2002 with its object and intent as also the legal proposition as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments. 36. The Act 2002 was enacted to address the urgent need to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof including vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of agencies and mechanisms for coordinating measures for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. 37. It is evident that the Act 2002 was enacted in order to answer the urgent requirement to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located. 43. The schedule has been defined under Section 2 (1) (x) which means schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The "scheduled offence" has been defined under Section 2 (1) (y) which reads as under: "2(y) "scheduled offence" means- (i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule." 44. It is evident that the "scheduled offence" means the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule. 45. The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of the Act, 2002 which reads as under: "3. Offence of money-laundering.-Whosoever directly or indirectly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein the Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have decided the issue by taking into consideration the object and intent of the Act, 2002. The definition of "proceeds of crime" as under paragraph-251. 51. The interpretation of the condition which is to be fulfilled while arresting the person involved in the predicate offence has been made as would appear from paragraph-265. For ready reference, relevant paragraphs are being referred as under: "265. To put it differently, the section as it stood prior to 2019 had itself incorporated the expression "including", which is indicative of reference made to the different process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the principal provision (as also the Explanation) predicates that if a person is found to be directly or indirectly involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime must be held guilty of offence of money-laundering. If the interpretation set forth by the petitioners was to be accepted, it would follow that it is only upon projecting or claimi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 45 (1) (i) (ii) is concerned, the aforesaid provision starts from the non-obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless - (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting bail specific in sub-section (1) in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. The explanation is also there as under sub-section (2) thereof which is for the purpose of removal of doubts, a clarification has been inserted that the expression "Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences notw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the constitutional court, the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of the 2002 Act must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money laundering." 55. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra), it has been laid down that since the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory, they need to be complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 56. It has further been observed that as per the statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. 60. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 CrPC. That coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the appellant. For ready reference, paragraph-30 of the said judgment reads as under: "30. The conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA. Section 65 requires that the provisions of CrPC shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontaining stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (Section 37), PMLA (Section 45), UAPA [Section 43-D(5)], Companies Act, [Section 212(6)], etc. (D) Economic offences not covered by Special Acts. REQUISITE CONDITIONS (1) Not arrested during investigation. (2) Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before investigating officer whenever called. (No need to forward such an accused along with the charge-sheet (Siddharth v. State of U.P. [Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 423] ) CATEGORY A After filing of charge-sheet/complaint taking of cognizance (a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through lawyer. (b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then bailable warrant for physical appearance may be issued. (c) NBW on failure to appear despite issuance of bailable warrant. (d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a bailable warrant/summons without insisting physical appearance of the accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (supra) has taken the view by making note that the penal offences as enshrined under the provision of UAPA are also under category 'c' making reference that jail is the rule and bail is the exception. 64. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal provisions and settled law this court is now adverting to merit of the case. Issue of legality of Arrest 65. Now coming to the ground as has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that at the time of arrest the condition stipulated under Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002 has not been followed and the ground of arrest has not been provided, in writing, as required to be provided under the provision of Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002and hence the very arrest of the petitioner is per se illegal and in that view of the matter the order of arrest is fit to be quashed and set aside and in consequence thereof, appellant may be directed to be released from judicial custody. 66. Per contra, the learned counsel for the ED respondent has submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to take the ground that the reason for arrest has not been communicated rather the reason for arre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) wherein the provision of Section 19 (1) has also been taken into consideration, which would be evident from paragraphs, which reads as under: 371. The next issue is : Whether it is necessary to furnish copy of ECIR to the person concerned apprehending arrest or at least after his arrest? Section 19 (1) of the 2002 Act postulates that after arrest, as soon as may be, the person should be informed about the grounds for such arrest. This stipulation is compliant with the mandate of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution. Being a special legislation and considering the complexity of the inquiry/investigation both for the purposes of initiating civil action as well as prosecution, non-supply of ECIR in a given case cannot be faulted. The ECIR may contain details of the material in possession of the authority and recording satisfaction of reason to believe that the person is guilty of money laundering offence, if revealed before the inquiry/investigation required to proceed against the property being proceeds of crime including to the person involved in the process or activity connected therewith, may have deleterious impac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds to refer herein the judgment which has come in the case of V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State Represented by Deputy Director & Ors. (supra) which was passed on 07.08.2023 wherein consideration has been given with respect to the issue of Section 19 (1) holding therein that that after forming a reason to believe that the person has been guilty of an offence punishable under PMLA, the officer concerned is at liberty to arrest him, while performing his mandatory duty of recording the reasons, and that the said exercise has to be followed by way of an information being served on the arrestee of the grounds of arrest. 72. Subsequent thereto, the matter has again come before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors (supra), wherein the factual aspect pertaining to the said case was that no written communication was made and only on the basis of oral communication of reason of arrest, the said Pankaj Bansal has taken into custody, which would be evident from discussion of the factual aspect, which would be evident from following paragraphs of the judgment, which reads as under: "2. The genesis of these appeals is traceable to FIR No. 0006 dated 17-4-2023 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be taken against them also in the context of the first ECIR, Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal secured [Basant Bansal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 2 HCC (Del) 700], [Pankaj Bansal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3590] interim protection from the Delhi High Court in Bail Applications Nos. 2030 and 2031 of 2023. By separate orders dated 9-6-2023 [Basant Bansal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 2 HCC (Del) 700] passed therein, the Delhi High Court noted that Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal had not been named in the first ECIR and that ED had not yet been able to implicate them in any of the scheduled offences under the 2002 Act. Further, the High Court noted that Pankaj Bansal had not even been summoned by ED in that case. The High Court accordingly granted them interim protection by way of anticipatory bail, subject to conditions, till the next date of hearing i.e. 5-7-2023. Special Leave Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 7384 and 7396 of 2023 were filed by ED assailing the orders dated 9-6-2023 [Basant Bansal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 2 HCC (Del) 700], [Pankaj Bansal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3590], [Basant Bansal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 2 HCC (Del) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieu, they made the following prayers: "In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s) to: A. Read down and/or read into as well as expound, deliberate upon and delineate the ambit, sweep and scope of Section 19 (1) PMLA in consonance with the principles, inter alia, enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 : (2022) 10 Scale 577] and hold that: (i) The expression "material in possession" occurring therein must be confined, circumscribed and limited to legally admissible evidence of sterling quality and unimpeachable character on the basis whereof "reasons to believe" could be recorded in writing that the arrestee is "guilty" of the offence under Section 4 PMLA; (ii) The word "guilt" occurring therein would qualify a higher yardstick than a mere suspicion and the learned Court at the stage of remand is required to apply its judicial mind to the grounds as well as necessity for arrest as, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. The decisions of the Delhi High Court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi [Moin Akhtar Qureshi v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12108] and the Bombay High Court in Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal [Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9938 : (2017) 1 AIR Bom R (Cri) 929] , which hold to the contrary, do not lay down the correct law. In the case on hand, the admitted position is that ED's investigating officer merely read out or permitted reading of the grounds of arrest of the appellants and left it at that, which is also disputed by the appellants. As this form of communication is not found to be adequate to fulfil compliance with the mandate of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and Section 19 (1) PMLA, we have no hesitation in holding that their arrest was not in keeping with the provisions of Section 19 (1) PMLA. Further, as already noted supra, the clandestine conduct of ED in proceeding against the appellants, by recording the second ECIR immediately after they secured interim protection in relation to the first ECIR, does not commend acceptance as it reeks of arbitrary exercise of power. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onance with the jurisprudential wisdom expounded by the Constitution Benches in cases referred above. The three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929] having already examined in detail the constitutional validity of Section 19 PMLA on the touchstone of Article 22 (1) and upheld the same, it holds the field as on the date. 77. Further, The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment while taking in to consideration the judgment passed in the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors (supra), come out with a view that Since by way of safeguard a duty is cast upon the officer concerned to forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession to the adjudicating authority immediately after the arrest of the person, and to take the person arrested to the court concerned within 24 hours of the arrest, in our opinion, the reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his arrest would be twenty-four hours of the arrest. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court refused to invalidate the arrest of said Ram Kishor Arora. For ready reference, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rson as soon as after his arrest was not mandatory or obligatory till the date of the said judgment. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel Mr Singhvi for the appellant that the said judgment was required to be given effect retrospectively cannot be accepted when the judgment itself states that it would be necessary "henceforth" that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. Hence, non-furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of judgment in Pankaj Bansal case [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576] could neither be held to be illegal nor the action of the officer concerned in not furnishing the same in writing could be faulted with. As such, the action of informing the person arrested about the grounds of his arrest is a sufficient compliance of Section 19 PMLA as also Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India, as held in Vijay Madanlal [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929]. 78. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the issue of Section 19 (1) in the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. Arrest under Section 19 (1) of the PML Act may occur prior to the filing of the prosecution complaint and before the Special Judge takes cognizance. Till the prosecution complaint is filed, there is no requirement to provide the accused with a copy of the ECIR. The ECIR is not a public document. Thus, to introduce checks and balances, Section 19 (1) imposes safeguards to protect the rights and liberty of the arrestee. This is in compliance with the mandate of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. 12. V. Senthil Balaji v. State similarly states that the designated officer can only arrest once they record "reasons to believe" in writing, that the person being arrested is guilty of the offence punishable under the PML Act. It is mandatory to record the "reasons to believe" to arrive at the opinion that the arrestee is guilty of the offence, and to furnish the reasons to the arrestee. This ensures an element of fairness and accountability. 16. Recently, in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), this Court reiterated the aforesaid principles expounded in Pankaj Bansal (supra). The said principles were applied to the pari materia provisions16 of the Unlawful Activiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not, if yes, then the arrest cannot be held to be invalid and if no, then certainly the arrest would be held to be invalid. 82. Now, adverting to the factual aspect of the present case and on consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of petitioner that no written communication has been furnished to the petitioner at the time of arrest, we have gone through communication dated 07.06.2023 wherefrom it is evident that detail/exhaustive reason has been given. The petitioner has put his signature on each and every page and even in the last page he has given a remark that 'read and understand' "'I have read my ground of arrest completely and also communicated to Mr. Dilip Ghosh." 83. Thereafter, on 08.06.2023 the Petitioner was produced before Learned Special Court (PMLA), Ranchi. The opposite party produced the remand application along with grounds of arrest, order of arrest, arrest memo, medical report and search memo under section 51 of Cr.P.C. before the Learned Special Court (PMLA), Ranchi which is also evident from its order dated 08.06.2023. The Learned court, after examining the remand application and all the material produced before it, remanded the accused person in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g grounds of arrest in writing, only prospective, by using the word "henceforth". The same has also been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishor Arora (supra) at Para 23. Hence, the law as it prevailed on the date of arrest was complied with. 88. We are conscious with the fact that the moment a person is being arrested that infringes the fundamental right of personal liberty as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and as such without any valid reason the personal liberty of the person cannot be infringed. 89. This Court, in view of the discussions made hereinabove and taking into consideration the endorsement given by the petitioner in the order communicating the reason of arrest, is of the view that the mandatory provision as contained under Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002, and the ratio laid down in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), and other judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court which has been referred herein in preceding paragraphs, has been followed by the respondent. 90. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove it is evident that the remand application was provided to the petitioner' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the same are the sale proceeds of the raw tea leaves sold by the company at its tea garden. He further provided misleading answers on being asked why the cash is deposited at salt lake, Kolkata while the tea is sold at the company's garden at Jalpaiguri. The accused Dilip Kumar Ghosh stated that since, the company has no bank account at Jalpaiguri and due to covid, the cash was not deposited in the bank, he used to go to Jalpaiguri and transported the cash which was deposited in the bank in Kolkata. He further stated that the cash was deposited in cash through Bikash Jana and Deepak Sah who are the employees of Amit Kumar Agarwal. * In his statement dated 07.06.2023 (RUD No. 79) recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002 he stated that work of his companies is done by the employees of Amit Kumar Agarwal and the salaries, P. F and E.SI of those employees are also paid by Amit Kumar Agarwal. He had no employees at his Salt Lake office where he sits with Amit Kumar Agarwal. * In his statement dated 09.06.2023 (RUD No. 80) recorded in Judicial Custody, under section 50 of PMLA, 2002 it reveals that he had been directors of several companies of Amit Kumar Agarwal and he had o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lip Kumar Ghosh and his wife, Mrs. Sutapa Ghosh were the directors and neither the present petitioner nor any of his family members have any stake in the M/s. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. Company and this company solely belongs to accused Dilip Kumar Ghosh. It is further submitted that the accused petitioner has been projected as the beneficial owner of M/s. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. which is absolutely false. 97. In the aforesaid context this Court thinks it fit to refer herein the relevant paragraph of RUD No.77 which has been translated into English and appended to the present application by way of filing supplementary affidavit as annexure 17. The relevant paragraph of translated RUD No.77 is being quoted as under: Ques.8: What is your relation with Rajesh auto Marchendise ? Give details. Ans.8: Rajesh auto Marchendise is the company of my friend Amit kumar Agarwal Ques.9: What is your relation with Mihijam Banaspati ? Give details. Ans.9: Mihijam Banaspati is the company of my friend Amit kumar Agarwal. Ques.10: Give details of the bank account of the Jagatbandhu Tea estate. Ans. 10. IDFC and Bandhan Bank. Ques.11: Give reason of frequent cash deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Jagatbandhu Tea Estate, of which company you are the director? Ans.21: I do not remember at this moment. I Will inform later. Ques.22: Provide details of your movable and immovable properties. Ans. 22: 1. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate, Private Limited. 2. one flat and one office space. 3. Car - Wagonar. Ques. 23: Bikash Jana and Deepak Kumar Sau are employyes of the company of Amit Kumar Agarwal Group. Then why they use to deposit Jagatbandhu Tea Estate's money in bank? Ans. 23: The people who look after the accounts of the company of Amit Agarwal Group are the same people who look after accounts of the Jagatbandhu Tea Estate. Amit Singhania is the Senior Accountant. He looks after all the accounts whose mobile number - 9304885292. Ques.24: How much salary do you pay Amit Singhania from the Jagatbandhu Tea Estate? Ans.24: From the Jagatbandhu Tea Estate no salary is paid to Amit Singhania. His salary is paid from the company of Amit Agarwal Group. Ques.26: How much Loans from Rajesh Auto Merchandise and Mihijam Banaspati were taken and when and through which method these loans were taken? Ans. 26: I do not remember at this moment. This will be informed later within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pal Choudhary are registered. It is noted that the montly salary of Amit Singhania is paid from Amit Agarwal's Company. 98. Thus, from perusal of translated copy of RUD -77 it is evident that the co-accused Dilip Kumar Ghosh has nowhere stated that the present petitioner is owner of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate ltd. but from the aforementioned statement it is apparent that present petitioner has close linkup with the said company. It has come in the said statement of the Dilip Kumar Ghosh that work of his companies is done by the employees of petitioner Amit Kumar Agarwal and the salaries, P.F. and E.SI of those employees are also paid by Amit Kumar Agarwal. Further it has been stated that the Director of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estates namely Dilip Kumar Ghosh is using the office space of the group companies of Amit Kumar Agarwal and the address where books of accounts of the company are maintained is the corporate office is mentioned at FMI House, F3, Block GP, Sector - V, P.S Bidhannagar, Kolkata, West Bengal - 700091. 99. It has come in the statement as well as in the investigation that huge cash is deposited into IDFC bank accounts bearing no. 10060532973 of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h) a separate and detached entity from Agarwal group of companies and acquire the property in possession of defence indirectly through Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. The email ID of the directors in the KYC i.e., Dilip Kumar Ghosh is [email protected] and that of Mrs. Sutapa Ghosh is [email protected] (RUD No. 81). Thus, it can be seen that the email ids of Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. (a company which is owned by Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and Amar Kumar Agarwal, brothers of Arnit Kurnar Agarwal) and Sanayukt Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. has been used in the KYC of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. which leads to the conclusion that M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. is a company which is solely under the control of Amit Kumar Agarwal. 101. Thus, from the aforesaid paragraph it is evident that nearly Rs 4.69 crores cash was deposited in bank account of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd, and Rs 4.13 crores was immediately transferred into the bank account of M/s Rajesh Aute Merchandise Fvt. Ltd. The directors of this company are Rajesh Agarwal and Amar Kumar Agarwal, brothers of Amit Kumar Agarwal (RUD Nc. 76). The accused person Amit Kumar Agarwal held the directorship o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary, (Supra). Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove it can safely be inferred that the present petitioner has closely related with the affairs of the said company i.e M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. However, the said company is owned by the present petitioner can only be adjudicated in course of trial because at this stage this Court has only to see the prima facie case. 106. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion in the backdrop of settled legal position it is evident that the address where books of accounts of the company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. are maintained is the corporate office of various companies of Amit Kumar Agarwal and his brothers namely Amar Kumar Agarwal and Rajesh Agarwal (herein referred as Agarwal group of companies). Further, during the search conducted at FKI House, F3, Block GP. Sector Kolkata, West Bengal V. F.S Bidhannagar, 700091, which is the address where the books of accounts of the company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. are maintained, various documents of M/s Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. were seized. 107. The seizure of these documents prima facie indicates that M/s Jagathbandhu T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out paying any rent. (iii) Also, in respect of huge cash deposits made between 2020 to 2022 in IDFC bank account number 10060532975 of Jagtbandhu Tea Estate, it was stated that the said cash is deposited by the employees of Amit Kumar Agarwal. The cash which is deposited into account of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. was further transferred to the account of M/s Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., a company managed and controlled by the petitioner Amit Kumar Agarwal with his brothers Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and Amar Kumar Agarwal. (iv) Further, in the account opening form of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd, bearing account no. 10060532975 maintained with IDFC Bank, the email ID mentioned is [email protected] (which belong to the companies of the petitioner Amit Agarwal namely M/s Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.) and the mobile number mentioned is 9433004062 (which belong to Prasanjit Pal Choudhary, an employee of Amit Kumar Agarwal who works in Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd, company of the petitioner). (v) The statement of Dilip Kumar Ghosh clearly indicates the company is running from the premises of Amit Agarwal, the employees of Amit Agarwal is depositing mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109 and taking into consideration the ratio of judgment of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb 2021) 3 SCC 713 has observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail, for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: 46. As already discussed, the material available on record indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist organisation involving exchange of large quantum of money through different channels which needs to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if the appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of the case which might hamper the process of justice. Therefore, mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted.. 116. This Court has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
