2016 (10) TMI 464

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctor, Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Davinder Singh Nirwal & Ors'. 2. The petitioner claims to have been falsely implicated by the officials of the Punjab Police in two different NDPS cases i.e. (i) FIR No.241 dated 07.12.2013, Police Station Sadar, Patiala, u/ss 21, 22, 25-A of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 and Sections 379, 411, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and (ii) FIR No.50 dated 03.04.2013, Police Station Urban Estate, Patiala, under Sections 18, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act. He was granted bail in both those cases earlier by this Court in CRM-M-24317 of 2014 and CRM-M-3593 of 2015, vide orders dated 6.10.2014 and 23.2.2015 respectively. Now, he claims to have been ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jay Jain of value to the extent of Rs. 70,00,000/- in view of the provisions of Section 2(u) of PMLA, 2002. It is pertinent to mention here that the value of the property to the extent of Rs. 70,00,000/- which are proceeds of crime have been attached under Section 5 of the PML Act, 2002 vide Provisional Attachment Order No.04/2015 dated 17.12.2015 and subsequently Original Complaint No.542/2016 dated 11.01.2016 has been filed before the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, New Delhi for confirmation of the same. The Adjudicating Authority (PMLA), New Delhi has confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order vide order dated 10.06.2016 in Original Complaint No.542/2016." 4. Besides, the complainant has asserted that the petitioner is the own....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lat in Ahinsa Vihar, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi was purchased by him for an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- only (more than 20 years ago) on 14.6.1995. So, there is nothing unusual or objectionable if the market value of such property over the two decades has appreciated, and so, on these grounds alone, it would be preposterous to conclude that the petitioner has generated any money in the form of 'Proceeds of Crime'. 6. Regarding the specific allegations of his having purchased Pseudoephedrine worth Rs. 68 lacs in 2012, and of having sold it subsequently to one Suresh Kumar alias Mehnga Ram for Rs. 70 lacs, first of all, there is no document to support the allegations of such transactions, and more importantly, there is no explanation or ....