2023 (5) TMI 1156 - HC - Money Laundering

Court upholds separate complaints in money laundering case, finds jurisdiction valid. Prima facie case for forgery and land acquisition irregularities.

The court upheld the order directing separate complaints in a money laundering case, finding it within jurisdiction. It held that the joint complaint was ... Money Laundering/Conspiracy - proceeds of crime - scheduled offences - forgery, manipulation of Government records, preparing back dated orders so that compensation may be granted at a much higher rate showing land as 'Non-Agricultural' - causing loss to Government Treasury - joint trial - HELD THAT:- In the case of STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SP, CBI VERSUS LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV, SAJAL CHAKRABORTY AND DR. JAGANNATH MISHRA [2017 (5) TMI 490 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the aspect of joint trial. In such huge cases, there may be a conspiracy, conspiracy separate and interlinked. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that When several offences are alleged to have been committed by several accused persons this Court has laid down that normal rule is of separate trials. It is clear from the impugned order dated 28.04.2022 that it was passed when the petitioners were not before the Court. Undoubtedly, an accused has no right to be heard before taking cognizance. The petitioners could not have been heard at that stage. The finding with regard to the separate trials, as recorded, in the order 28.04.2022 is definitely a tentative finding. It has been recorded at a pre-cognizance stage. Now, separate complaints have been filed against the petitioners. If petitioners are so advised, they may definitely move an application before the court for joinder of charges or a joint trial. In the eventuality of such application having been filed, the court would have an advantage of having views of the petitioners also and thereafter, such an application could be decided. Any conclusion recorded by this court, on this aspect, at this stage may prejudice the rights of the petitioners to move such an application for joinder of charge/trial before the court concerned. Therefore, the Court refrains from recording any conclusion on it. This Court is of the view that the court had acted within its jurisdiction while passing the order dated 28.04.2022, in the case. It is in accordance with law. The question as to whether all the subsequent seven complaints may be jointly tried or not is still open. In case, an application for joint trial is filed in any of the subsequent seven complaints, the court would definitely decide such application in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.04.2022 does not warrant any interference. Enhancement of compensation - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of Section 3C of the NH Act, in fact, makes it clear that at this stage objections to the use of land for the purpose or purposes mentioned under Section 3A (1) of the NH Act are entertained. It means that any person can object that for the purpose or purposes as mentioned in Notification under Section 3A(1) of the NH Act, land cannot be acquired. It apparently does not relate to compensation part, which is a subsequent stage - At the stage of Section 3D of the NH Act the objections raised under Section 3C are considered and final notification is made. The determination of compensation is done under Section 3G of the NH Act. At that stage, the competent authority would give a public notice in the newspapers inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. Section 3G (7) of the NH Act is quite wide. It empowers the competent authority as well as the arbitrator to determine the compensation by assessing market value, etc. In the case of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VERSUS SRI P. NAGARAJU @ CHELUVAIAH & ANR [2022 (7) TMI 1413 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for the purposes of determination of compensation under the NH Act, the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 would also apply. Cognizance of an offence is taken and thereafter, summoning is done, if there is prima facie case made out against the person to be summoned. The words “prima facie case” as such have not been defined under any provision of the Code. At different stages of a criminal case, the level of satisfaction is different. At the stage of summoning “prima facie case” is to be seen. At the stage of the framing of charge, the level of satisfaction is higher than it and, finally, at the stage of judgment, the level of satisfaction is “proved beyond reasonable doubt”. For “Prima facie case”, it has to be shown that some offence has been committed and there is material regarding grave involvement of the person to be summoned. In the case of Martin Burn Ltd. Vs. R.N. Bangerjee, [1957 (9) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court in some other context discussed the concept of a prima facie case and observed that “a prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same were believed. While determining whether a prima facie case had been made out the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence.” Having considered the material, cognizance has been taken and the petitioners and others have been summoned. This Court does not see any illegality in the summoning order. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the cognizance and summoning order dated 06.09.2022 passed in SST No. 14 of 2022. In the instant case, the petitioners Ramesh Kumar and Om Prakash are farmers. Their land was notified as ‘Agricultural Land’ under Section 3D of the NH Act. They had never filed any objections either under Section 3C or 3G of the NH Act. Their role is given in paras 9.1 and 9.2 of the complaint respectively. The role of the petitioners Dinesh Pratap Singh, Arpan Kumar, Bhole Lal and Vikas Kumar is given in paras 9.4, 9.3, 9.5 and 9.7 of the complaint respectively. They all were revenue officers/official at the relevant time. Their role is identical to the acts attributed to them in other complaints. The averments as made in the complaint definitely make out a prima facie case against all these petitioners. The cognizance and summoning order passed on14.10.2022 is quite in detail. The court below has taken into consideration the material placed before it. Having considered the material, cognizance was taken and the petitioners and others have been summoned. This Court does not see any illegality in the summoning order. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the cognizance and summoning order dated 14.10.2022 passed in SST No. 17 of 2022. Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the order dated 28.04.2022 returning the joint complaint for filing separate complaints.2. Prima facie case against the petitioners in the subsequent seven complaints.Summary:Issue 1: Validity of the Order Dated 28.04.2022The Directorate of Enforcement filed a joint complaint against the petitioners for money laundering. The court returned the complaint on 28.04.2022, directing the filing of separate complaints, citing that different 'Proceeds of Crime' were generated in different transactions and all accused were not involved in each transaction. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that a court cannot return a complaint with a direction to file it in a particular manner. They relied on the case of A. Vinayagam Vs. Dr. Subhash Chandran, which states that a Magistrate cannot return a complaint due to defects. The court held that the order dated 28.04.2022 was within jurisdiction and in accordance with law, allowing for separate complaints to be filed. The court also noted that the question of joint trial for the subsequent complaints remains open and may be decided by the trial court upon application.Issue 2: Prima Facie Case Against the Petitioners in Subsequent ComplaintsThe court examined the material in the subsequent seven complaints to determine if a prima facie case was made against the petitioners. The complaints involved allegations of forgery, manipulation of government records, and obtaining excessive compensation for land acquired by NHAI by falsely showing agricultural land as non-agricultural. The court found that the allegations and material presented in the complaints made out a prima facie case against the petitioners for each complaint. The court upheld the cognizance and summoning orders in Special Sessions Trial Nos. 14 of 2022, 15 of 2022, 16 of 2022, and 17 of 2022, finding no illegality in the orders.ConclusionThe court dismissed all the petitions, affirming the validity of the order dated 28.04.2022 and the subsequent cognizance and summoning orders in the seven separate complaints.