TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntrol of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act') was filed by U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow (for short the ''Board') with the allegation that on 17th July, 2007, the officers of the Board inspected the firm and found that there is no proper arrangement for air pollution and the factory was operational from 12.09.1984 to 17.07.2007 without obtaining the consent of the Board, in contravention of Section 21 of the Act. Special Judicial Magistrate, (Water and Air Control) vide order dated 30th March, 2011, imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the firm and also convicted the revisionist. Against the said judgment and order, revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2011 (M/s. Afzal Timber Store & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.), which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 5th February, 2016. In the meantime, the Board made a complaint to the Enforcement Directorate vide letter dated 03.01.2013, on which Directorate of Enforcement registered Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) No. 01/PMLA/LZO/2013 on 09.01.2013 for investigation of offence of money laundering under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e basis of presumption that the revisionist was manufacturing the plywood without obtaining permission. Shri Mathur submitted that on the said complaint case, court below had wrongly passed the judgment and order dated 30.03.2011 convicting and sentencing the appellant with a simple imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and also imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- on the firm. He further submitted that on 19th April, 2011, necessary equipment was installed and the permission was granted to start the factory. Shri Mathur submitted that against the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2011 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution), Lucknow, revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2011 (supra), which was admitted and the revisionist was admitted to bail. However, in the meantime, the Board, with the malicious intent, made a complaint against the revisionist and the firm to the Directorate of Enforcement alleging that revisionist being the proprietor of the firm has been convicted for contravention of Section 37 of the Act, which is also a Scheduled Offence under the PML Act and recommended for prosecution. Directorate of Enforcement taking cognizance on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 2005-06 and 2006-07 appears to have been utilised subsequently by the accused persons for acquisition of various movable/immovable assets so as to project them as "untainted" on continued basis even after 1st June, 2009, which is an offence under Section 3 of PML Act. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that after investigation of the case by the Enforcement Directorate, when nothing incriminating material was found against the revisionist, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement wrote a letter to the Chief Environment Officer for providing the cost of the unit which was not installed, in response to which, it was informed by the Board that the cost of the unit was Rs. 2 lac. Even thereafter, Directorate of Enforcement filed a complaint under Section 45 of the PML Act before Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Lucknow, which was registered as Case No. 04 of 2015 (supra) with the allegation that by not investing funds legally required for installation of the pollution control equipments, invested in business, therefore, the revisionist had generated ''Proceeds of Crime' to the tune of Rs. 2 lac. Shri Mathur vehemently submitted that Rs. 2 lac can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad." Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that after adding Explanation clause in Section 2(1)(u), which clarifies that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence, but in the present case, no offence can be said to be made out. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order dated 29.04.2019 is liable to be set aside. Shri Shiv P. Shukla appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that revision is not maintainable. He submitted that officials of the Board informed to the Enforcement Directorate that the revisionist committed offence, for which he was convicted by the Special Court under Section 37 of the Act, which is a Scheduled Offence under para 24 of Part-B. He also submitted that ECIR was registered in terms of the provisions of Section 2y(ii) of the PML Act, which provides for investigation under Part B of the schedule of PML Act for the Scheduled O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the unit, which was not installed in the factory, in reply to which, information was given by the said Officer that cost of the device/chimney, which was not installed at the time of inspection, is Rs. 2 lac. Thereafter, Complaint Case No. 04 of 2015 was filed by Enforcement Directorate in the court of Special Judge (PML Act) with the allegation that the inspection of factory was conducted by the officers of the Board on 16th July, 2007 and it was found that no pollution control equipment was installed in the factory as per the provisions laid down in the Act However, after installation of the pollution control equipment, permission was granted him to run the factory on 19.04.2011 and the total cost of the installation of the desired pollution control equipment was Rs. 2 lac. From the record, it is also evident that after purchasing the land in question in the year 2004 for running the factory, the revisionist had applied for consent of the Board in the year 2007 and the inspection of the premises was conducted by the officers of the Board, in which, the pollution control unit was not found. Thereafter, complaint was filed by the Board with the presumption that the factory was ru....