AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 993
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....astructure Private Limited (DDPL) and M/s. Unicorn Infra Projects and Estates Private Limited (Unicorn); (c) certain transactions in relation to the sale of shares between SVCT and one Trinity Investments Private Limited (Trinity). 3. It is the submission of the learned SPP for the respondent the facts would disclose the petitioner was involved in dealing with the proceeds of crime and in transferring of funds of M/s. PACL through various companies and making transactions of purchasing of properties etc. in the manner stated herein below. 4. It is stated M/s. PACL has transferred Rs.101 crores to Borker Rao's company; Rs.2285 crores to Prateek Group of Companies and Rs.110 crores to 25 companies which then gave the said amount to M/s. Systematix Venture Capital Trust (SVCT). It is the case of the respondent out of Rs.101 crores, the Borker Rao's Company transferred Rs.26 crores to M/s. DDPL and M/s. Unicorn; Prateek Group transferred Rs.94 crores to them and the 25 companies of associated companies of M/s. PACL transferred Rs.110 crores to M/s. DDPL and M/s. Unicorn. It is argued even though the petitioner allegedly joined the group in the year 2012 and left them in the year ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence and influencing the witnesses per para nos.31,34 and 35 of the reply filed. 7. The learned SPP for CBI argued from the earlier conduct of the petitioner it is revealed he has been managing with the proceeds of crime as late as 2017. He then referred to Lodha Committee Report which show the money he received from 25 companies of M/s. PACL and was managing the same. 8. The learned SPP also referred to an order dated 06.10.2021 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.13301/2015 as under: "8. The above extract indicates that the Committee has found that PACL had transferred Rs 110.95 crores to five companies, which in turn had transferred the funds to twenty five entities, who were associates of PACL. This amount was invested in Scheme I of Systematix, which in turn had invested it in the equity shares and OFCDs of DDPL and Unicorn, alleged to be associates of PACL. Of the above amount of Rs 110.95 crores, the Committee has, thus far, recovered Rs 42.24 crores from Systematix and recovery proceedings have been initiated for recovering an amount of Rs 19.04 crores, which was repaid by Systematix to twenty five associate companies of PACL. SEBI initiated action for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t named in the ECIR and has been cooperating with the respondent since 2016. All other main accused of scheduled offence and offence of money laundering have been either granted bail or not arrested. PACL was declared to be running an illegal CIS by the SEBI on 22.08.2014. This culminated into a series of proceeding and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.02.2016 in Civil Appeal No.13301 of 2015- Subrata Bhattacharya Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors. devised a mandatory mechanism in PACL matters by constituting Justice Lodha Committee for disposing of the land purchased by the Company so the sale proceeds can be paid to the investors, who have invested their funds in the Company for purchase of the land. 15. In compliance with the special mechanism implemented by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, SVCT had secured an amount of Rs.42.24 Crores. 16. It is alleged the petitioner, time and again, as and when directed, had submitted various documents to the respondent. It is alleged there has not been any allegation of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. In fact, all the evidence and information (including digital devices) are in the cust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en against an investment company which is down in the line, more specifically when the investment were accepted prior to 2014 when till that time the PACL was not declared as a corrective investment scheme. 21. In CBI chargesheet the CBI had referred to ten companies at page 14; ten companies in para 92 of page 76; 26 direct subsidiary companies in para 123 and 126 indirect subsidiary companies-entities and the petitioner allegedly had not been dealing with either of them. The allegations were Rs.12000 crores were paid to them and there was no allegation the petitioner being a part of the same. The allegations are a sum of Rs.12,455.94 crores were diverted as agricultural land development charges and the same were also not related to the petitioner herein. 22. It was argued the CBI not only investigated the crime but also the diversion of money including to a foreign company and each head of diversion and/or its beneficiaries; the petitioner did not figure anywhere. Even the supplementary chargesheet filed on 31.12.2021 does not speak about the investment of the petitioner per para 5.9, 5.10 at page 310 and para 7.1 at page 314 and also the allegations at page 334 qua diversi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be operating an illegal CIS was still in operation and even vide order dated 26.02.2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not restraint M/s. PACL from continuing its operations and rather directed SEBI to look into it. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to annexure P56 viz. a letter dated 10.02.2022 of SEBI to show an amount has since been deposited by the petitioner's company. 27. The last transaction was qua flow of fund from M/s. PACL to M/s. B&B; M/s. Mahaveer Infraengineering and M/s. Aravinda Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was further seen downwards. M/s. PACL had transactions of Rs.33.00 crores but whereas the petitioner had transaction worth Rs.60.00 crores with Mr. Dhananjay and he allegedly had no information as to if the amount coming to Mr. Dhananjay was from M/s. PACL. 28. Moreso, M/s. B&B; M/s. Mahaveer Infraengineering and M/s.Aravinda Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. were not made an accused by the ED. Further the money transferred by M/s. PACL to M/s. B&B if was a part of predicated offence is not concluded. Neither the ED nor the CBI had named M/s. B&B as accused and not ever summoned the concerned person. It is stated despite the lapse of twelve years....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence in the present matter is primarily documentary which is in possession of the complainant and therefore there is no reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the evidence. Similarly, the claim of complainant that custodial interrogation of the accused may be required falls flat as throughout the investigation period, their arrest was never deemed appropriate or necessary. They were not forwarded to the Court in custody at the time of filing of complaint. There is no reasonable apprehension of the accused persons fleeing from justice either." 31. Admittedly, except the present petitioner no other accused involved under the PMLA was ever arrested by ED or was granted bail vide order dated 03.09.2020. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, the Court rather held: "387. xxxx The offence of money-laundering has been regarded as an aggravated form of crime "world over". It is, therefore, a separate class of offence requiring effective and stringent measures to combat the menace of money- laundering. 388. xxxxx The successive decisions of this Court dealing with analogous provision have stated that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is necessary to protect the constitutional right of an expeditious trial in a situation where large number of accused implicated in a trial would necessarily delay the trial and the right to expeditious trial is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. 34. Considering the submission of the petitioner, viz. the petitioner's claim he did not have knowledge if the funds of M/s. PACL were tainted in any manner on account of an order dated 28.11.2003 of Rajasthan High Court in PACL India Ltd. vs. Union of India as also an order dated 26.02.2013 in SEBI vs. PACL India Ltd. in CA 6753-54/2004 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to classify M/s. PACL as CIS but had only directed the SEBI on 22.08.2014 to look into its affairs and that there was no embargo for 18 years upon M/s. PACL on its operation. Admittedly the petitioner was a downstream investor of funds hence his submission he did not knowingly became a party to money laundering cannot be brushed aside lightly. Even otherwise he allegedly was a nominee non-executive director since 11.09.2012 in M/s. DDPL and M/s. Unicorn and prior to 11.09.2012 had nothing to do with these companies; further substantial amount re....