9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce under Section 120-B of IPC read with section 384, 467, 471, 504, 506 part-II and substantive offence thereunder, at P.S. Jamnagar City 'A' Division. Another FIR No. 135/2016 dated 28.06.2016 was registered against the present appellant and others for commission of offence u/s 120-B of IPC read with Section 406, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC and the substantive offences thereunder, at P.S. Jamnagar City 'C' Division. After investigation police filed separate charge sheets with respect to aforesaid two FIRs on 05.03.2017 & 21.03.2017 respectively. Accordingly, ED, Ahmedabad Zonal Office recorded ECIR/AM/ZO/ 02/2016 dated 18.11.2016 for initiating investigation for the offence of money laundering and to trace out the trail of proceeds of crime. As per charge sheet no. 39/2017 it is alleged as under: (i) Jaysukh @ Jayesh Muljibhai Ranpariya Patel and others hatched a criminal conspiracy and as a part of the said conspiracy one accused Mayur Maganbhai Sabhaya Patel made a forged Power of Attorney in the name of Vipulbhai @ Tino S/o Chunibhai Jivabahi Patel at the office named Muralidhar Developers, situated at Jamnagar, Ranjitsinh Road, Opp. Subhash Park, in respect of the 141 plots o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Devjibhai Moliya and Mayur Maganbhai Sabhaya got the documents nos. 2832/16, 2834/16, 2835/16 and 2836/16 registered at the office of the Sub Registrar I, Jamnagar on 05.05.2016. D-1 and others abetted in getting the sale deeds registered with full knowledge that the said Power of Attorney is forged and abetted the said offence by giving identification and putting the signatures and thereby grabbed the 141 plots admeasuring 2,46,922.59 square feet valued at Rs. 100,00,00,000/- (One Hundred Crores) of the ownership of Shri Amrishbhai Vinodchandra Mehta and thereafter called Shri Vinodchandra Prabhulal Mehta, father of Shri Amrishbhai Mehtaat the factory named Precision Brass Industries at GIDC and D-1 abused Shri Vinodchandra Prabhulal Mehta and threatened him to kill for forcibly handing over the possession of the said plots and it is found that all the accused abetted each other in furtherance of their common objective and committed the scheduled offence. As per the charge sheet no. 35/2017 the investigation conducted by police revealed as under: (i) During January, 2016, D-1 and other accused met in the office situated at Ranjitsagar Road, Jamnagar, named "Patel Trading Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Ranpariya Patel and Ramde B Nandaniya prepared forged Power of Attorney in favour of Pravin Kandoriya and although did not pay any amount by cheque or in cash to the complainant or the witness. (iii) Chandrakant Sanghani and Pravin Chovatiya, prepared forged receipts for payment of money through cheque and cash and as per the guidance D-1 Pravin Kandoriya, Chandrakant Sanghani and Pravin Chovatiya, went to Mumbai, Maharashtra and contacted the Advocate/Notary in the Andheri Court, and although the complainant and witness was not present notarized the documents. In this way all the accused from the beginning remained in constant indirect contact with each other through mobile and hatched criminal conspiracy and prepared forged Power of Attorney and receipt for the payment of consideration amount and as per the guidance of D-1 and Ramde B Nandaniya, accused Pravin Kandoriya, Chandrakant Sanghani and Pravin Chovatiya knowingly purchased the e-stamp, from the Mamalatdar office, situated at Sarusection Road, Jamnagar, being stamp duty for the Power of Attorney and deed and although the Power of Attorney and the receipt for payment of the consideration amount were forged, deliberatel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 on account of settlement, as the offence under Section 420 of IPC is a compoundable offence. He further pointed out that present appellant is also negotiating with the complainant of FIR no. 105/2013 for amicable settlement and thereafter appellant will file another writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat for quashing of FIR no. 105/2013. The prayer is accordingly made that in view of settlement in one FIR and the likely settlement in another FIR, the present appeal needs to be allowed. Except the above two issues, no other ground is raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent ED strongly opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant on the ground that the 24 properties are attached as value thereof and hence as per para 68 of the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. UOI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, the said confirmation order needs to be upheld, as para 68 is not considered in the later judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Pavana Dibbur vs. Enforcement Directorate, (2023) 15 SCC 91 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586. Even otherwise, the judgment of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. UOI being passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for giving interpretation. However, an elaborate judgment on the issue has been given by the Delhi High Court in the case of Prakash Industries Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2087 and in this regard, Para 105 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:- "105. It would be pertinent to recall that properties which were acquired prior to the enforcement of the Act may not be completely immune from action under the Act in light of what this Court had held in Axis Bank. As was explained by the Court in Axis Bank, the expression proceeds of crime envisages both ―tainted property as well as ―untainted property‖ with it being permissible to proceed against the latter provided it is being attached as equal to the "value of any such property" or "property equivalent in value held within``` the country or abroad". However, both the italicised categories would be liable to be invoked in cases where the actual tainted property cannot be traced or found out. It is only where the respondents are unable to discover the tainted property that they can take the statutory recourse to move against properties which may fall within the ambit of ― ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectorate Of Enforcement reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586 (supra) has also been considered. However, findings given by three judges Bench of the Apex Court in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India (supra) has been relied to give interpretation to the definition. In the light of the above, we find no force in the argument when the proceeds out of crime was not available with the appellant rather vanished and siphoned off, the property of equivalent value has been attached. The proceeds were siphoned off by diverting it to various group companies and by layering the proceeds. In the light of the aforesaid, second limb of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has been applied to attach the property of equivalent value. Thus, this issue raised by the appellant cannot be accepted. 6. Now, coming to the second contention that the appellant is negotiating with the complainant of FIR no. 105/2013 for amicable settlement and the same is likely to be settled, and further contention that FIR no. 135/2013 is already settled with the complainant and same is likely to be quashed by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat is also devoid of any merits, seeing the fact that the appellant is fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
