TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 939
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....332/DLI/2016 & FPAPMLA- 1333/DLI/2016 have been filed against the order dated 10.05.2016 passed in O.A. No. 41/2015 whereby the application filed by the respondent u/s 17(4) of the Act was allowed. The prayer of retaining of documents and electronics equipment (which were seized from the premises of the appellants) were allowed to be retained till further investigation. 2. The second set of appeals no. FPA-PMLA-1929-1930- 1931/DLI/2017, FPA-PMLA-1952/DLI/2017, FPA-PMLA- 1957/DLI/2017 & FPA-PMLA-2428/DLI/2018 have been filed against the common order dated 4.8.2017 by State Bank of Patiala which is now merged with the State Bank of India. Both banks were having the same stand. 3. It is the admitted position that common order passed in O.A. No. 41/2015, on 10.05.2016, the prosecution complaint has only filed in July, 2018 where even the Respondent was not able to remove the objection for one year the Special Court. 4. Counsel for the appellants have argued their respective appeals as per their case set up in their appeals. 5. The brief facts are that CBI, New Delhi registered FIR dt. 24th August, 2015 which inter alia revealed that ZHC incorporated and registered with ROC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing appellant at Sr. No. 3 to 8 of the title of the order. 9. After investigation CBI has filed charge sheet before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI at Jaipur in the said case against M/s Ziqitza Healthcare Ltd (hereinafter referred as ZHL), Sh. Ravi Krishna, Mrs. Sweta Mangal and Shri Amit Antony before Special Judge, CBI at Jaipur. Ld. Special Judge has taken cognizance on said charge sheet. As per CBI, further investigation is under progress in the said case and supplementary charge sheet will be filed by them. Copy of the charge sheet filed by CBI is already on record as filed by the Appellant. The main allegation were summarized as under:- (i) Investigation revealed that a criminal conspiracy was hatched, in pursuance of which M/s ZHL, dishonestly, fraudulently and deliberately, prepared forged documents and used these forged documents as genuine as M/s ZHL was not eligible as per the eligibility criteria of the RFP regarding annual turnover of Rs. 20 crore in any one of the last 3 years. But with the added revenues of International Centre for Emergency Techniques (ICET) (the Consortium Partner), M/s ZHL was technically qualified for opening of financial bids. It is also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the meeting dated 26.07.2010. Further, photocopies of the bills in respect of the medical/non-medical consumables were enclosed with the bill for claiming payments. These facts were highlighted by the officials processing the payment. However, after processing of this bill, "on account" payment to the tune of 50% of the bill was proposed to be made by Sh. Hanuman Prasad, the then FA, in order to ensure that the services are not disrupted. (v) It revealed that verification could not be done by the CM & HOs as the company did not submit the bills with supporting documents to the CM & HOs for verification. However, "on account" payment continued to be made for the entire centralized period of payment till December, 2011 when the payment of the bills was decentralized to respective District Health Societies. During this period, the concerned Mission Directors of NRHM continued to make "on account" payment to M/s ZHL in order to ensure that the emergency services are not disrupted. During July, 2010 to December, 2011 (centralized period), NRHM made payment of Rs. 32,60,99,926/- to M/s ZHL as against total claimed amount of Rs. 41,86,19,930/-. (vi) Investigation revea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 3,55,72,685/- was made on account of excess payment made to M/s ZHL due to multiple trips. However, an amount of Rs. 60,15,875/- is still remaining to be recovered as per the calculation made by department and the CAG on the basis of available record. (viii) Investigation has thus, revealed that M/s ZHL through its CEO Smt. Sweta Mangal and Director Sh. Ravi Krishna dishonestly, fraudulently and deliberately submitted inflated bills about multiple trips on the basis of wrong parameters and obtained excess payment from the Government of Rajasthan on the basis of the said bills and inducement, thereby causing a loss to the government exchequer. (ix) Later on, an audit was got conducted by NRHM in respect of the medical/nonmedical consumables used by M/s ZHL during operation of 108 ambulance services in the state of Rajasthan. For this purpose, an agency namely Institute of Public Auditors of India (IPAI) was engaged. IPAI submitted its audit report and had highlighted several discrepancies including that M/s ZHL procured articles/materials amounting to Rs. 1.37 lakhs which were not covered by the terms of agreement, non-medical consumables (stationery) amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09.11.2009 and Power of Attorney for the Lead Member of Consortium dated 14.11.2011 which were filed by M/s ZHL along with its bid and enabled M/s ZHL to be selected in the bid. She was also the executants of the contract with Govt. of Rajasthan and was the CEO of M/s ZHL at the relevant time. She was handling the operations of the company in the State of Rajasthan on regular basis and had attended numerous meetings with NRHM officials as the representative of the company both before and after execution of the contract. Treating each patient as an individual trip was also her brain child and she was aware of the malpractices done by the company in submission of the bids as well as in subsequent monetary claims. She, as CEO, had also obtained remuneration of Rs. 1,23,32,400/- during FY 2010- 2013 (during the period of operation of M/s ZHL in the State of Rajasthan) from M/s ZHL. (xiv) M/s Ziqitza Healthcare Ltd. being a legal entity also gained out of the offences of cheating and the forgery in the document enabled the company to grab the contract for which it was not eligible. (xv) Since M/s ZHL did not submit the record for three months after starting operation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re used for creations of FDRs and bank guarantees in favour of the accused company (ZHL). There are sufficient reasons to believe that M/s ZHL and its directors in connivance of officials of Govt. of Rajasthan, and others had acquired the illicit money by fraudulent means, which is primarily property involved in money laundering in the matter of "108 Ambulances Service" in state of Rajasthan. Hence, there are sufficient reasons to believe that in that entire modus operandi, alleged persons had knowingly possessed, used, acquired and converted lots of ill-gotten / tainted money i.e. property involved in money laundering, during operation of "108 Ambulance Service' in state of Rajasthan through banking channel as untainted and knowingly laundered the said tainted money, for the ultimate benefits of the ZHL and its directors, by projecting and claiming the same as untainted. Thus, by the above mentioned criminal activities, M/s ZHL and its directors obtained the assets of Rs. 23 Cr. (approx.) which is in fact the property involved in money laundering. 11. The above said Proceeds of crime of Rs. 11,88,62,519/- trace out so far, has been attached vide Provisional Attachment Order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2400003608 21-Apr-16 5,000,000 21-Apr-17 16943600005894 25-Mar-16 1,171,673 04-Apr-17 16943600006167 12-July-16 5,000,000 12-July-17 16943600006170 12-July-16 10,000,000 12-July-17 16943600006205 04-Aug-16 205,000 04-Aug-17 Total 2,13,76,673/- Details of Immovable Property in the name of M/s. ZHL Annexure A- 3:- Immovable Properties Apartment No. 1A in the First Floor in the Second Tower of the proposed building known as High Lands" on the land described in scheduled A mentioned below with an undivided share of 273/100000 (including one half part in depth of joints between the ceiling of each apartment and the floor of the apartment above it and internal and external walls between such levels admeasuring area 1233 Sq. ft (Approx.) and one covered car park. Schedule "A" Property covered by Document no. 2584/06, 2585/06, 2588/06, 2822/07 and 2954/07 of Thrikkakara Sub Registry Office. District Ernakulam Sub-District Ernakulam Taluk Kanayannur Desom Kakkanadu Village Kakkanadu Re-Sy. No. 570/20, 21, 22, 160 and 164 Extent 252.741 Cents Local au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. It is submitted on behalf of respondent that on the basis of FIR dated 10.6.2014 the department has made searches on the premises of the accused company/persons namely on Mr. Ravi Krishna, Ms. Sweta Mangal and M/s. Ziqitza Health Care through its Director wherein some documents & electronic record was seized. In respect of the said seizure OA was filed before Adjudicating Authority, and retention was allowed. Thereafter on reasonable belief that properties are involved in money laundering provisional attachment order was passed on 31.3.2017 wherein movable and immovable properties of the accused was attached. The attachment was confirmed by Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 04.08.2017. 17. It is stated on behalf of respondent since prior to 19.04.2018 when Section 8(3)(a) was amended, there was no time limit for filing prosecution complaint, hence after the amendment the prosecution case in respect of all the accused persons namely M/s. Ziqitza Healthcare, Sweta Mangal, Ravi Krishna, Naresh Jain & other persons was filed within the stipulated time of 90 days in the Special Court at Jaipur, Rajasthan on 18.07.2018 for the offence of money laundering and confiscation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found lowest bidder amongst three technically qualified bidders. The Appellant No. 1 Company was awarded the contract for running '108 ambulance services' in Rajasthan from 6th April'10 to 6th April'13, at Rs. 94,899/- per ambulance per month which was lower than other two technically qualified bidders. That on 1/07/2010, Appellant's Company successfully took over the operations of 164 ambulanced under '108 service' from GVK-EMRI. The aforesaid allotment was transparent and competitive, it was a multi-party bid, out of which three bidders were technically qualified and Appellant's Company was the lowest bidder. Hence, the Company was qualified in the technical threshold and also was with the lowest bid. It is pertinent to state that GCK-EMRI MOU which existed prior to Company taking over the operation had GPS as a technical requirement which was carried on for the expression of interest in which Company finally succeeded. All subsequent tenders issued by NRHM. Rajasthan also has the requirement for installation of GPS/GIS/GPRS. (e). At the time of the takeover, majority of the 164 ambulances were not road worthy. They required significant maintenance work. The estimated co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court of competent jurisdiction in Jaipur. While the execution petitions was still pending before the Civil Court, NRHM moved a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court under Article 227 after the Civil Court dismissed their objections filed against the execution petition moved by the Company. (j). It was NRHM on 25.03.2013 which seeked the company consent for extension of the contract for 3 more months. On 4/04/2013, the company gave conditional acceptance to the request for extension of the contract period for three months. However, these conditions were never accepted by NRHM Rajasthan. Despite NRHM not accepting the conditions of the company, still in good faith the company continued to operate the 108 services till 5/04/2013. Despite this, the last date of operation of the ambulance as per the contracted term was extended by NRHM for a further period of 3 months on 6/04/2013. The Company expressed its inability to operate further unless payment released as per the terms and conditions of the contract. (k). On 7/05/2013 NRHM suo motu decided to take charge of office premises, control room, all data and give possession of all ambulances to CMHO's Company han....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Shri Sachin Pilot, Shri Karti P. Chidambaram, Shri Ravi Krishna and Ms. Sweta Mangal. c. The company is involved in generation of funds to the tune of Rs. 6.44 crores illegally while running "108 Ambulance Service" in Rajasthan. The case relates to award and execution of contract for operation of Ambulance services in different districts of Rajasthan by ZHC between 2010-2013. (n). Solely on the basis of the aforesaid FIR and without application of mind as to whether positive steps are taken by the company for claiming the proceeds from NRHM as untainted money, and Original Application was filed before the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as O.A. No. 41/2014. (o). On 28.08.2015, CBI conducted search raids in the office of the company and three of its directors. On 29.08.2015 to 3.09.2015, notices were issued to Mr. Naresh Jain (CEO) to appear before CBI and CEO appears before them and submitted all the required documents. It is submitted that Naresh Jain was also made a party with the proceeding despite the fact that Naresh Jain was appointed as the Director in 30 June 2004, however, he resigned from the company i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Directorate had taken actions under Section 17 of PMLA Act, 2002 against the Company and its Managing Director, Shri Naresh Jain in Mumbai and seized the files alleging it to be crucial for investigation of the offences of money laundering. The said documents seized are under investigation. The said documents were not at all required to be seized as the same were either supplied by the Company or were already in the public domain. 21. The case of SBI in its appeal Nos. FPA-PMLA-1952/DLI/2017 and FPA-PMLA-2428/DLI/2018 in OC 769/2017 filed Bank of Patiala. The fixed deposits attached by the Enforcement Director (ED) have been taken as margin money for the Bank Guarantee (BG) issued by the appellant bank as performance security for the contract, on which the bank has exclusive charge and therefore does not fall within the purview of 'proceeds of crime' as defined u/s 2(1)(u) of the Act. 21.1 The appellant bank being the secured creditor has priority over the rights of any Central or State Government. In case of the release of the bank guarantee by this Tribunal, the appellant bank will continue to hold them as margin money for the BG issued by the bank till their ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the Prosecution/Director of Enforcement to make a prima facie case of money laundering, placement and layering. 21.8 As per the provision of section 8(1) and the proviso to section 8(2) of the PMLA Act, whereby the Adjudicating Authority has to rule whether all or any of their properties referred to in the notice are involved in money laundering or not and the Authority while arriving at any conclusion has to give valid reasons. Hence the ED has to take its decision on its "reason to believe" which is not produced/placed on record by ED. 21.9 This Tribunal has repeatedly granted opportunities to the ED to place on record the 'reason to believe' vide orders dated 12.01.2018, 09.03.2018, 29.11.2018 & 09.01.2019 and has directed the IO to be present along with the documents. However, on the last date of hearing neither the Counsel for the Respondent was present nor the IO was present in compliance of the order dated 24.05.2019. This Tribunal observed that since the ED had sought various adjournments and a last opportunity was granted and the matter was being argued by the Appellant. 21.10 As per the order dated 18.01.2019, since the ED has failed to produc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved or acted in any manner to facilitate any unusual activities while conducting or operating the account by Respondent No. 2 Company. 22.4. The impugned order dated 4.8.2017 has totally ignored the law laid down in the case of C. Chellamuthu Vs. Deputy Director, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, C.M.A. (MD) No. 104 to 110 of 2015 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, which puts the onus on complainant that being the Directorate of Enforcement to verify Bank statements, and record as to how the private party did not have sufficient financial capacity to buy the property. 22.5 The impugned order dated 4.8.2017 ought to have considered the law laid down in the case of Dr. V.M. Ganesan Vs. The Joint Director, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras held that if money has been advanced, for the purchase of certain property and cannot be taken to be proceeds of crime then, after recording a finding to that effect the Adjudicating Authority is obliged to set aside the provisional attachment order. 22.6. It is submitted that in the present case the Directorate of Enforcement has failed to make out a case, that the property sought to be attached is arising....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in favour of Appellant by making lien on the FDs more specifically mentioned hereinabove and hence, the Applicant Bank is a secured creditor. The Adjudicating Authority has simply vast its end by taking view that a charge created by a private agreement would be subject to a statutory charge as it has been held in Jitendranath Singh Vs. OL (2013) SCC 462. 23. The matter came to be listed before the Tribunal on 13.09.2017 whereby the Tribunal issued notice and interalia passed the order granting Status Quo. (a). The matter came to be listed again on 22.09.2017 whereby time was granted to the respondents to file their replies. Interim orders were directed to continue. (b). No reply was filed by the Respondent ED. Therefore again 6 weeks time was granted for the same on 12.01.2018. It was further directed to the Respondent ED, by this Hon'ble Tribunal to supple a copy of the "reason to believe" in a sealed cover. The said reason to believe was never provided to the Appellant. (c). The reply by the Respondent ED was not filed and it was stated at bar, on 09.03.2018 that the same would be filed during the course of the day. Substantial arguments were adva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i). On 26.02.2019 the Respondent for the first time produced the record as directed by this Tribunal, however the affidavit to be filed by the Respondent ED in terms of the order dated 18.01.2019, was not filed. (j). The appeal was argued on behalf of the Appellants. Counsel for the Respondent admitted on 02.04.2019 that no separate reason to believe were ever recorded hence not been presented. 24. It is pained to notice, how the orders of this tribunal are not been complied despite of directions. The orders are breached left and right without giving any respect. There is no valid justification is given not to comply the orders during hearing of appeals. 25. It is as essential ingredients to pass order under the 2nd Proviso to Section 5(1) of PML Act was not fulfilled, the attachment has to go. Even at the stage of search and seizure under Section 17 of the Act, the separate reason to believe were to be recorded which is mandatory. The same were neither produced nor filed. 26. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority by the Impugned Judgment has erred in failing to recognise the legitimate claim of the Appellant at the stage of confirmation of the PAO itsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same is not to be served to aggrieved party even at the stage of arguments in the main appeal or any subsequent proceedings. These cannot be shown to the appellant. 31. The guidelines of recording the reason to believe have been laid down in various judgements of Apex Court and High Courts. It is held time and again by the said Hon'ble Courts directing that the approach should be not the subjective satisfaction of the officer concerned. Such power given to the officer concerned is not an arbitrary power and has to be exercised in accordance with the restraints imposed by law. The belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds, the officer concerned may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion or the allegations mentioned in the FIR or charge-sheet so that the same can be scrutinized in order to verify whether they are relevant and germane or not. He cannot proceed further on the basis of opinion already formed by someone else. The officer who is supposed to write down his reasons to believe independently applying his mind in every case. It should not be merely a mechanical reproduction of the words mentioned i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oval of objections before the special court. Counsel for the respondent stated that the prosecution complaint was only filed on 18.07.2018 and admitted that the same was only registered in 2019 i.e. after one year. It was stated that it took time to remove the objection. It appears that the objection were removed, after the start of arguments in the appeal. The first order for retention of documents and equipment was passed on 10.05.2016. The prosecution complaint was not filed for more than two years. The confirmation order of properties were passed on 4.8.2017. The prosecution complaint was allegedly filed on 18.07.2018 i.e. after about 11 months. The objections were not removed for one year raised by the Special Court. The same is not intent of the provision of u/s. 8(3)(a) of the Act. 35. The conduct of I.O. was not proper and fair who does not wish to file the complaint in time, who does not wish to remove the objection for more than a year, who does not wish to comply any order passed by this Tribunal. The details of his conduct are given in the following paras:- (a) When appeal came to be listed before this Tribunal on 07.05.2019, passed inter alia the following ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as already been argued on behalf of the appellant. In the interest of justice, list these appeals on 03rd July, 2019. No further adjournments will be granted for the said purposes. Interim order to continue. I.O. shall remain present along with the records on the next date of hearing...." (f). Even after the abovementioned order having being passed by this Tribunal and repeated adjournments having being taken by the Respondent, the counsel for the Respondent was again not present for hearing on 03.07.2019. The Investigating officer of the said case was also not present. The order was reserved, the respondent was allowed to file a copy of the written submissions within two weeks. Copy of prosecution complaint was filed alongwith the written submission after the reserved of order. 36. It is specifically pleaded on behalf of appellants that Mr. Naresh Jain was not an employee of the Defendant No.1 that being Ziqitza Health Care Ltd. from during the relevant time period from 1st July 2010 when Ziqitza Health Care Ltd. took over the operations under the contract to 2013 is born out from the following sequence of events. Hence Mr. Naresh Jain cannot be said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quired to sustain an order passed under the 2nd proviso of subsection 1 of section 5 of the prevention of money laundering act. Second proviso to Sub-Section 1 of Section 5 is being reproduced herein below; "Provided further that, notwithstanding anything contained in {first proviso}, any property of any person may be attached under this section if the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorized by him for the purposes of this section has reason to believe (the reasons for a such belief to be recorded in writing) , on the basis of material in his possession, that if such property involvedin money launderingis not attached immediately under this chapter, the non-attachment of the property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act." 39. An appreciation of Second proviso to Section 5 of PMLA act reveals it is differently worded than the rest of the section and has additional checks and balance as the word "money laundering" is used and not "proceeds of crime" . Therefore apart from merely suggesting that there exists proceeds of crime the onus is on the prosecution / Director of Enforcement to make a prima facie case of money l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 SCC 417 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 748 the Hon'ble Supreme court has held in the following terms; ".... 60. Whether the burden on the accused is a legal burden or an evidentiary burden would depend on the statute in question. The purport and object thereof must also be taken into consideration in determining the said question. It must pass the test of the doctrine of proportionality. The difficulties faced by the prosecution in certain cases may be held to be sufficient to arrive at an opinion that the burden on the accused is an evidentiary burden and not merely a legal burden. The trial must be fair. The accused must be provided with opportunities to effectively defend himself. In Sheldrake v. Director of Public Prosecutions [(2005) 1 AC 264 : (2004) 3 WLR 976 : (2005) 1 All ER 237 : 2004 UKHL 43 (HL)] it was stated in the following terms: (WLR pp. 988-89, para 21) "21. From this body of authority certain principles may be derived. The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right directed to that end. The Convention does not outlaw presumptions of fact or law but requires that these should be kept within ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de out. (d) no intermingling of funds could be substantiated by the ED. No documents were filed or any serious arguments were advanced. (e) the provisional attachment order or any order below record no ground for urgency provision to be invoked or makes any ground of layering or placement at all leave alone a prima facie case. (f) No case made out at all that any property is untraceable or can go untraceable. (g) Even after accepting in the provisional attachment order that ED have examined the Appellant's Bank account, ED has not been able to even make out a Prima Facie case of changing the nature of money or any layering or placement. 43. In the case of Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1179 at page 201, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to record and hold in the following terms; "... (IV) Burden of proof and doctrine of innocence 27. Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. However, subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence. For this purpose, the nature of the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that was substantially probable cause to form opinion that the property under attachment is 'proceeds of crime'. The ED has failed to establish that the decision is well thought, well reasoned and has been issued on the basis of the material gathered during the course of investigation carried out under the provisions of PMLA. ECIR was registered on the basis of FIR filed by CBI. Second proviso was invoked but no reason to believe were recorded as prescribed in the second proviso. The impugned order was passed on the basis of charge-sheet filed later on. There is valid investigation and independent investigation by increasing the figures. Even otherwise, if figures are increased, it has to be tested at the time of trial. 47. The Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate that the fixed deposits have been taken as margin money for the bank guarantee issued by the Appellant Bank and as such bank has exclusive charge on them. The Authority has not recorded any reason as to why funds with the bank that are secured for the Bank Guarantee issued by the Appellant bank could be attached and there is no "reason to believe" placed on record by the ED. The bonus cannot be harassed without ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by reading Section 8(1) and the proviso to Section 8(2) of the Act whereby Adjudicating Authority has to rule whether all or any of the properties referred to in the notice are involved in money laundering or not and the authority while arriving at any conclusion has to give valid reasons. 52. The Adjudicating Authority has failed to establish a prima facie case against the appellant banks. There are no proofs on records that the bank is parking the proceeds of crime. It is incorrect to allege that the FDRs will be frustrated if they are not provisionally attached. The bank has exclusive charge over the margin money and the same is safely kept with the bank and cannot be used by the company. Further, the Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate that the property attached under the provisional order is not acceptable to money laundering or that the property has been obtained out of proceeds of crime. The bank money/bank guarantees cannot be allowed to be attached in this fashion unless the banks have link and nexus in the criminal actively, otherwise banking system would be collapsed. 53. The most important point in the present case is that Magistrate (SPE) where CBI h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondent says that loss is about 23.92 crores. The findings of respondent have to be tested at the time of trial. 56. How the contrary figures have been mentioned by the respondent as per its own investigation of the same allegation. Without expressing any opinion in this regard, we are of the view that all these contrary figures of two agencies are to be tested in evidence. The banks are innocent parties. One is failed to understand after filing the reply, the banks are un-necessary dragged in the litigation. Their duty amount has to be secured. They cannot be harassed in this fashion. No civil death should be given to banks without their involvement. The banks money is a public money. 57. Thus, the appeals filed by the banks are allowed and impugned order is set-aside against them. The attachment is not sustainable, without application of mind and very harshful. There is no material of record that the banks have any nexus and link with the other appellants. 58. As far as other appellants are concerned, CBI has given the following finds after investigation and on the basis of charge-sheet filed. The same documents were discussed by the CBI. Such details are given ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayment made to M/s ZHL due to exaggerated claims made by the company (containing multiple trips). The amount so calculated was calculated on the basis of available record and does not cover the entire period as the requisite data for the entire period was not available so as to enable NRHM to calculate exact magnitude of loss suffered on this account. (iii) After calculation of amount to be recovered on account of excess payment due to multiple trips and the salary of the staff deputed on ambulances during 01-15 July, 2010, a letter dated 25.01.2012 was sent to the CM & HOs of Alwar, Udaipur, Jodhpur, Bharatpur, Bhilwara, Nagaur, Sikar, Bikaner, Jhunjhunu and Banswara districts to recover the said amount in 10 installments. Accordingly, a recovery of Rs. 3,55,72,685/- was made on account of excess payment made to M/s ZHL due to multiple trips. However, an amount of Rs. 60,15,875/- is still remaining to be recovered as per the calculation made by department and the CAG on the basis of available record. (iv) Investigation has thus, revealed that M/s ZHL through its CEO Smt. Sweta Mangal and Director Sh. Ravi Krishna dishonestly, fraudulently and deliberately submitt....