TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 1180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uo;PNB‟) and other persons had during the period from November, 2005 to December 2006 entered into a criminal conspiracy and made false entries in the accounts of PNB, Vidhan Sabha branch, Dehradun allowing deposits and withdrawal from five fictitious accounts maintained in the name of non- existent persons at PNB, Arya Vanprastha Ashram Branch, Jwalapur, Haridwar. By doing so, said persons misappropriated the funds of PNB and also caused a pecuniary gain to themselves or any other persons and correspondingly pecuniary loss to the PNB. In the said information it was stated that the said persons had obtained an illegal pecuniary gain of Rs. 10,88,987/- (Rupees Ten lakhs eighty eight thousand nine eighty seven) which was the interest accrued on the principal amount of Rs. 3,30,82,105/- (Rupees Three crore thirty lakhs eighty two thousand one hundred and five) deposited in these accounts and subsequently withdrawn. 3. On the basis of the said information RC No. 0072011A0003 was registered on 21.01.2011, by CBI SPE, Dehradhun against the five persons namely, Mr.M.M. Sharma Manager (Retd.), PNB Vidhan Sabha Branch Dehradun, Mr. Harish Kamboj Deputy Manager, PNB, Vidhan Sabha Bran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent proceeded to attach various properties at Dehradun and Delhi through provisional attachment orders dated 25.10.2012 and 30.08.2013 respectively which were subsequently confirmed vide orders dated 21.03.2013 and 26.02.2014 respectively. A supplementary charge sheet was filed by the CBI on 28.09.2011. 7. Finally, CBI completed its investigation regarding 66 other accounts mentioned in the said FIR and submitted its closure report dated 08.08.2014 with regard to the said accounts. In the said closure report it was concluded that the investigation did not reveal any wrongful loss to the bank or Government of India due to the said 66 accounts and hence no offence was said to be made out. In the said closure report, it was also mentioned that the issue of petitioner‟s alleged disproportionate assets and the said false accounts are a subject matter of investigation by the SIT UP Police, Lucknow in FIR No.4/2011 dated 03.05.2011. The closure report filed by the CBI was accepted by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Dehradun by way of its order dated 21.08.2014. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a petition before the High Court of Uttrakhand seeking quashing of the CBI proceedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the contents of CBI‟s FIR in the ECIR without any independent confirmation. The ECIR does not mention the name of the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in a separate proceedings concerning the investigations by SIT of the State of Uttar Pradesh, certain statements of witnesses were recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. namely that of Anil Vaid, Devaki Nandan Taneja and Ravindra Taneja out of whom Anil Vaid stated on affidavit that he was forced by the officers of the respondent to state that the petitioner had visited him, failing which he was threatened to be implicated as an accused. The remaining two persons denied that they knew the petitioner. 11. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that advertence to the relevant provisions of the PMLA would reveal that without a „scheduled offence‟, the provisions of the Money Laundering Statute cannot be attracted. This is apparent from Section 3, 2(u) and 2(y) of the PMLA which require that money laundering occurs when the proceeds of crime from a scheduled offence are sought to be projected as untainted. In the circumstances of this case where the CBI proceedings have been close....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r PMLA. The order dated 03.12.2014 is causing prejudice to the respondent. Therefore, it may be recalled. After completion of investigation CBI filed a charge sheet on 09.09.2011 wherein the petitioner was named for commission of offences under Section 120B, 420, 417 r/w 468, 409 and 477A IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the PC Act. CBI further filed a supplementary charge sheet on 28.09.2011 against the petitioner based upon the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Dehradun, Uttrakhand dated 26.09.2011 inter-alia to the effect that he had signed as „A Kumar‟ on „11 Withdrawal Slips‟, through which total amount of Rs. 77,20,520/- (Rupees Seventy seven lakhs twenty thousand five hundred and twenty) was withdrawn by him from Account No. 106400010120669 maintained/operated in the name of „Kaushik A. Kumar‟, maintained with Punjab National Bank, Arya Vanprastha Ashram, Jwalpur, Haridwar. The petitioner submission is factually incorrect regarding quashing of the FIR. Investigating agency under the PMLA has independent power to investigate the allegations, irrespective of the fact that whether the FIR on the basis of which the ECIR was registered is in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... now invoked by the Enforcement Directorate were on the statute book except Section 467 IPC. Thus, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted by invoking those provisions." 21. It is settled principle of law that the provisions of law cannot be retrospectively applied, as Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars the ex-post facto penal laws and no person can be prosecuted for an alleged offence which occurred earlier, by applying the provisions of law which have come into force after the alleged offence. 22. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire basis of the ECIR has been the contents of the FIR filed by the CBI. It has been further contended that since CBI‟s closure report dated 08.08.2014 and the order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the High Court of Uttrakhand the proceedings arising out of the FIR against the petitioner, have been quashed and hence ECIR should also be quashed. A bare perusal of record shows that on completion of investigation into the first set of five accounts, CBI filed a charge sheet on 09.09.2011 before the learned Special Judge, CBI, Dehradun (Uttrakhand) against Mr. Manmohan Sharma, Mr. Arun Kumar Bansal alongwith ....