TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lved in all these petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India ("the complainant") filed a complaint against all the petitioners and some other persons in the court of Special Judge (PMLA)/Sessions Judge, Dehradun, based on which, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 454 of 2021, Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Dinesh Pratap Singh and others ("the case") was instituted. On 28.04.2022, the court observed that all the accused named in the complaint did not commit the offence of money laundering in the course of same transaction because different 'Proceeds of Crime' was generated in different transactions and all accused persons were not involved in money laundering of each and every 'Proceeds of Crime'. The court observed that the complaint was liable to be returned for filing fresh and separate complaints, in accordance with the provisions of Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"). Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 28.04.2022, the complaint was returned. This order is impugned in all the petitions. Thereafter, the complainant filed seven separate complaints as follows:- SL No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e cognizance and summoning order passed in Special Sessions Trial Nos. 14 of 2022, 16 of 2022 and 17 of 2022 as well as their proceedings; (iv) The petitioner Bhagat Singh Fonia has challenged the order dated 28.04.2022 passed in the case as well as cognizance and summoning order passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2022 as well as its entire proceedings; (v) The petitioner Madan Mohan Padaliya has challenged the order dated 28.04.2022 passed in the case as well as the cognizance and summoning order passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2022 as well as its entire proceedings; (vi) The petitioner Barinder Singh has challenged the order dated 28.04.2022 passed in the case as well as the cognizance and summoning order passed in Special Sessions Trial Nos. 14 of 2022 and 15 of 2022 as well as their entire proceedings; (vii) The petitioner Balwant Singh has challenged the order dated 28.04.2022 passed in the case as well as the cognizance and summoning order passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2022 as well as its entire proceedings; (viii) The petitioner Ramesh Kumar has challenged the order dated 28.04.2022 passed in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....65, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B and 34 IPC and under Section 13 (1) (b), 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioners Dinesh Pratap Singh, Arpan Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Chauhan, Vikas Kumar, Bhole Lal, Bhagat Singh Fonia, Madan Mohan Padaliya, Om Prakash and others. 7. The investigation in the matter was undertaken in different phases. After completion of the 5th phase of investigation, Charge Sheet No. 2D of 2019 was submitted against the petitioner Barinder Singh and Jagdish Arora. After investigation of the 6th phase, Charge Sheet No. 2E of 2019 was submitted against the petitioner Ramesh Kumar. After completion of investigation, Charge Sheet No. 2H of 2020 was submitted against the petitioner Balwant Singh and others. 8. During the course of argument, in the instant case, it has been informed that the trial in the aforementioned charge sheets is pending. 9. The Directorate of Enforcement also investigated the role of the petitioners and others in connection with money laundering under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("the PML Act") and a complaint dated 08.12.2021 was filed in the court, which is basis of the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to do is to consider the same by ordering the examination of complainant and/or as the case may be, his witnesses. It was strenuously suggested that if there are some formal defects like the age is not stated or the name of the father of the accused is not stated, the complainant should get a fair chance to correct the defects. We only observe that it is for the complainant to produce a defectless complaint, if because of such defects, such as non-mentioning of the age and names of father, etc., the identity of the accused person becomes suspicious or is not established properly then, the complainant must suffer for his defective complaint, but, under no circumstances, could the Magistrate return the complaint particularly after the court-seal had been put on that complaint and the court- fee stamps have been cancelled then, as rightly found by Janarthanam, J., the complaint becomes the court property." 12. It has been argued that since the order returning the complaint dated 28.04.2022, passed in the case is non est in the eyes of law and is completely without jurisdiction, the subsequent complaints that have been filed pursuant to the order dated 28.04.2022 would also not su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt has taken a note of the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Abhinandan Jha and others Vs. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117. In the case of Abhinandan Jha (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted and discussed the options available with the magistrate to whom a police report is submitted by the Investigating Officer. (iii) The impugned order dated 28.04.2022 passed in the case is based on the interpretation of the provisions of Sections 218, 219 and 223 of the Code. According to the scheme of the Code, a trial does not commence until charge is framed. It is a post cognizance stage. Therefore, it is argued that the observations made in the impugned order dated 28.04.2022, deprived the petitioners an opportunity of a fair trial/proceedings in accordance with law. (iv) Even on subsequent complaints, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner Dinesh Pratap Singh, therefore, they deserve to be quashed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the principles of law, as laid down in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. "102. In the backdrop of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 15. During the course of argument, when the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as made in the case of CREF Finance Ltd. Vs. Shree Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd. and another, (2005) 7 SCC 467 were brought to the notice, learned counsel for the petitioner Dinesh Pratap Singh would submit that the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as made in the case of CREF Finance Ltd. (supra), are commensurate with declining/refusal of taking cognizance thereupon i.e. dismissal of a complaint. It is submitted that firstly, the course open to a court of competent jurisdiction upon presentation of a complaint is to take cognizance; or secondly, refuse to take cognizance and just dismiss/reject/ return the complaint; and thirdly, ordering a further investigation. It is argued that there is no procedure in law to return a complaint with an observation to direct the complainant to file the same in a man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that while passing the order dated 28.04.2022, the court did not take into consideration certain principles of a joint trial. Learned counsel placed reliance on the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Nasib Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 924. In the case of Nasib Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court summed up the principles of joint trial and in para 51 observed as hereunder:- "51. From the decisions of this Court on joint trial and separate trials, the following principles can be formulated: 51.1. Section 218 provides that separate trials shall be conducted for distinct offences alleged to be committed by a person. Sections 219-221 provide exceptions to this general rule. If a person falls under these exceptions, then a joint trial for the offences which a person is charged with may be conducted. Similarly, under Section 223, a joint trial may be held for persons charged with different offences if any of the clauses in the provision are separately or on a combination satisfied. 51.2. While applying the principles enunciated in Sections 218-223 on conducting joint and separate trials, the trial court should app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgued that in the instant case also, the complainant may not be held guilty for return of a complaint. (ii) The respondent has filed separate complainants in some of which, cognizance has already been taken. It, in no manner, prejudices the interest of the petitioners. (iii) Before taking cognizance, no law permits that the accused should be heard. (iv) The principles of law, as laid down in the case of M.C. Mehta (supra), does not apply in the instant case, because in the case of M.C. Mehta (supra), the initial action was lodging of an FIR, which is not an issue in the instant case. (v) All the offences have not been committed in same transaction; different farmers obtained different fake orders; they had different dealings with the Revenue Officials. (vi) In each farmer's case, there was a separate conspiracy. That forms one set of conspiracy unconnected with another conspiracy hatched with another farmer. (vii) The petitioners can challenge the subsequent summoning order passed in seven separate complaints. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 21. The Code prescribes a procedure under Chapter XV for complaints to the Magistrate. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he complaint to the complainant. But if he does not do so and proceeds to examine the complainant and such other evidence as the complainant may produce before him then, it should be held to have taken cognizance of the offence and proceeded with the inquiry." 26. What is cognizance? As such, the word cognizance has not been defined under the Code or anywhere. Generally, it means taking note of an offence by the Magistrate. In the case of Nimaljit Singh Hoon Vs. State of West Bengal and another, (1973) 3 SCC 753, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "when a complaint is presented before him, he can under Section 200 can take cognizance of an offence made out therein and held them to examine the complainant as witness. 27. In the case of Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and others Vs.V. Narayana Reddy and others, (1976) 3 SCC 252 (in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2019) 17 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the statement of law contained in para 17 of the judgment in the case of Devarpalli Lakshimanaraya Reddy (supra) cannot be relied upon. But, that was on another point), the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of any offence." (emphasis supplied) 28. It has further been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narsingh Das Tapadia Vs. Goverdhan Das Partani and another, (2000) 7 SCC 183 [in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey and another, (2014) 10 SCC 713, on one of the separate law points (premature complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881), this case law has been distinguished] in para 8 observed as hereunder:- "8. "Taking cognizance of an offence" by the court has to be distinguished from the filing of the complaint by the complainant. Taking cognizance would mean the action taken by the court for initiating judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of the offence regarding which the complaint is filed. Before it can be said that any Magistrate or court has taken cognizance of an offence it must be shown that he has applied his mind to the facts for the purpose of proceeding further in the matter at the instance of the complainant. If the Magistrate or the court is shown to have applied his mind not for the purpose of taking action upon the complaint but for taking some other kind of action contemplated u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceeds to examine the complainant under Section 200 of the Code. 32. In the instant case, when the complaint was presented and registered, the court passed an order that argument shall be heard on cognizance and thereafter, returned the complaint. The court did not proceed from Section 200 onwards in Chapter XV of the Code. The order dated 28.04.2022, passed in the case is not an order after taking cognizance of the case. It is an order which was passed before taking cognizance of the case. 33. An argument has been raised on behalf of the petitioners that while returning the complaint, merits cannot be seen. This argument has less force, in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CREF Finance Ltd.(supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the complaint may be returned, if it is filed without 'sanction' of the competent authority. The question of 'sanction' also involves merits of the case. While appreciating the arguments on the question of sanction, merits are always required to be examined, as to whether the act complained of was done by the accused in discharge of his official duties or not? Therefore, definitely, before taking c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e different offences generated different POC, however this complaint is filed after clubbing all these Proceeds of Crime (POC) in one investigation, whereas every money laundering of each and every Proceed of Crime (POC) is a distinct offence under Section 3 of the PMLA punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. 9. In the present case all accused persons have not committed the offence of Money Laundering in the course of the same transaction because different POCs were generated in different crimes and all accused persons are not involved in the Money Laundering of each and every POCs." 38. It is true that the provisions of Sections 218, 219 and 223 of the Code are post cognizance. But, as stated and held by this Court, the Magistrate may return a complaint before taking cognizance. 39. Section 218 of the Code is a general rule for framing of charge. It speaks of a separate charge and a separate trial for every offence. The general rule is that for a distinct offence, there should be a distinct charge and a separate trial. But there are circumstances, in which the charges may be joint and different persons may be put to a joint trial. Sections 218, 219 and 223 of the Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iving or retaining, or assisting in the disposal or concealment of, property possession of which is alleged to have been transferred by any such offence committed by the first-named persons, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such last-named offence; (f) persons accused of offences under sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or either of those sections in respect of stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence; (g) persons accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) relating to counterfeit coin and persons accused of any other offence under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such offence; and the provisions contained in the former part of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to all such charges: Provided that where a number of persons are charged with separate offences and such persons do not fall within any of the categories specified in this section, the Magistrate or Court of Session may, if such persons by an application in writing, so desire, and if he or it is satisfied that such persons woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if each or some of the offences can be separately tried, it would be appropriate and lawful. Joint trial prolongs the trial and causes waste of judicial time and complicates the matter which might otherwise be simple, and it would confuse the accused and cause prejudice to them. Court should not be overzealous to provide a cover of conspiracy for a number of offences unless it is satisfied that the persons who committed separate offences were parties to the conspiracy and committed the separate acts pursuant to the conspiracy. ....................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................... 32. In R. v. Griffiths [R. v. Griffiths, (1966) 1 QB 589 : (1965) 3 WLR 405 : (1965) 2 All ER 448 (CA)] it has been laid down that a conspiracy should be tried separately to substantive counts. The Court of Appeal in En....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing themselves." 34. When several offences are alleged to have been committed by several accused persons this Court has laid down that normal rule is of separate trials." 43. On behalf of the respondent, it is being argued that with each farmer, the Revenue Officials had different conspiracy. It is also being argued that many farmers cannot be joined together in a trial under the PML Act. 44. It is clear from the impugned order dated 28.04.2022 that it was passed when the petitioners were not before the Court. Undoubtedly, an accused has no right to be heard before taking cognizance. The petitioners could not have been heard at that stage. The finding with regard to the separate trials, as recorded, in the order 28.04.2022 is definitely a tentative finding. It has been recorded at a pre-cognizance stage. Now, separate complaints have been filed against the petitioners. If petitioners are so advised, they may definitely move an application before the court for joinder of charges or a joint trial. In the eventuality of such application having been filed, the court would have an advantage of having views of the petitioners also and thereafter, such an application could ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 9.10 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. But, whatever is stated in those paragraphs does not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. (iii) In para 9.6 of its counter affidavit, the respondent has stated that despite the knowledge that the nature of land has already been notified in the notification issued under Section 3D of the NH Act, the petitioner sought an information regarding the nature of land and disbursed excess compensation. It is argued that under Section 3G of the NH Act, it was incumbent upon the petitioner, as a competent authority, to determine the market value of the land proposed to be acquired and for that purpose seeking information was mandatory or else the petitioner would have been blamed for dereliction of duties. (iv) The petitioner simply proposed the compensation, which was submitted to the National Highways Authority of India and in the note sheet of the National Highways Authority of India, this fact is mentioned that there is a change of nature of land in the notification under Section 3D of the NH Act and in the proceedings under Section 3G of the NH Act. The petitioner did not conceal anything. The Proje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner Dinesh Pratap Singh has placed reliance on the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Anurag Srivastava and others Vs. National Highway Authority of India, through its Chairman and others, 2019 SCC OnLine All 5900, National Highway Authority of India Vs. Durgappa Bharamappa Sannagudi, 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 8312 and National Highway Authority of India Vs. P. Nagaraju alias Cheluvaiah and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 864. 49. In the case of Anurag Srivastava (supra), notices under Section 3G of the NH Act were not issued. The matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. In para 25 of the judgment, the Hon'ble High Court gave liberty to the petitioner to file objections in terms Section 3G (3) of the NH Act before the competent authority also with regard to the nature of the land. The Court held as hereunder:- "25. For all the reasons mentioned above, we find that the award dated 19th September, 2018 passed by the second respondent under Section 3G of the Act, 1956 has been passed without following the procedure prescribed under Section 3G(3) of the Act, 1956, hence it is quashed to the said extent. We grant liberty to the petitioners to file object....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the land and the hardship faced due to deprivation of the property would be the same irrespective of the Act under which it is acquired or the purpose for which it is acquired. In that light, if Section 28 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is held not applicable in view of Section 3J of NH Act, the same will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In that circumstance, the observation in Tarsem Singh (supra) that Section 3J of NH Act is unconstitutional to that extent though declared so while on the aspect of solatium and interest, it is held so on all aspects relating to determination of compensation. In any event, the extracted portion of the notification dated 28.08.2015 is explicit that the benefits available to the land owners under RFCTLARR Act is to be also available to similarly placed land owners whose lands are acquired under the 13 enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule, among which NH Act is one. Hence all aspects contained in Section 26 to 28 of RFCTLARR Act for determination of compensation will be applicable notwithstanding Section 3J and 3G(7)(a) of NH Act." 52. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had discharged his duties in acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Senior Counsel would also raise the following points in his submission:- (i) At the stage of determining compensation under Section 3G of the NH Act, the competent authority is not empowered to re-examine the nature of land, which had already attained finality at the stage of Section 3D notification. (ii) The principles of law as cited on behalf of the petitioners are not applicable in the instant case. In the case of Anurag Srivastava (supra), the Hon'ble Court only gave liberty to the petitioner of that case to raise his objections with regard to the land use. But, it is argued that as such no law has been laid down. (iii) Petitioner Dinesh Pratap Singh should not have sought report from the Revenue Authorities with regard to the land use, because no farmer had raised any objection with regard to the nature of land at the stage of either Section 3C or Section 3G of the NH Act. (iv) Petitioner Dinesh Pratap Singh sought information with a mala fide intention to pay an excess compensation to the farmers. It is argued that the entire material that has been filed along with the complaints reveal that prima facie case is made out against all th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing and shall set out the grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person or by a legal practitioner, and may, as the competent authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow or disallow the objections. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub- section, "legal practitioner" has the same meaning as in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961). (3) Any order made by the competent authority under sub-section (2) shall be final." * * * 3D. Declaration of acquisition. - (1) Where no objection under sub-section (1) of section 3C has been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objection under sub-section (2) of that section, the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the land should be acquired for the purpose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. (7) The competent authority or the arbitrator, as the case may be, shall take into consideration - (a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3A; (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land; (c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings; (d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change." (emphasis supplied) 63. Sub-section (1) to Section 3C of the NH Act makes it abunda....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cussed hereinbefore. The commission of the scheduled offence is one thing and resultantly, the 'Proceeds of Crime' are something different which is defined under Section 2 (u) of the PML Act, as hereunder: "2(u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country or abroad. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" including 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;" 70. The offence of "money laundering" has been defined under Section 3 of the PML Act, which is punishable under Section 4 of it. Section 3 of the PML Act reads as hereunder:- "3. Offence of money-laundering.- Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocess and activity, direct or indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy. The Explanation inserted to Section 3 by way of amendment of 2019 does not expand the purport of Section 3 but is only clarificatory in nature. It clarifies the word "and" preceding the expression projecting or claiming as "or"; and being a clarificatory amendment, it would make no difference even if it is introduced by way of Finance Act or otherwise. (b) Independent of the above, we are clearly of the view that the expression "and" occurring in Section 3 has to be construed as "or", to give full play to the said provision so as to include "every" process or activity indulged into by anyone. Projecting or claiming the property as untainted property would constitute an offence of money-laundering on its own, being an independent process or activity. (c) ...... (d) The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity connected with su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is prima facie case made out against the person to be summoned. The words "prima facie case" as such have not been defined under any provision of the Code. At different stages of a criminal case, the level of satisfaction is different. At the stage of summoning "prima facie case" is to be seen. At the stage of the framing of charge, the level of satisfaction is higher than it and, finally, at the stage of judgment, the level of satisfaction is "proved beyond reasonable doubt". For "Prima facie case", it has to be shown that some offence has been committed and there is material regarding grave involvement of the person to be summoned. 76. In the case of Martin Burn Ltd. Vs. R.N. Bangerjee, AIR 1958 SC 79, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in some other context discussed the concept of a prima facie case and observed that "a prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same were believed. While determining whether a prima facie case had been made out the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (e) that Smt. Yukta Mishra, the then SDM Jaspur submitted an enquiry report dated 17.03.2017 & 20.03.2017 (Annexure B-14) to the then Kumaon Commissioner regarding the discrepancies found in the record of said land in revenue documents of SDM Court and Tehsil. (f) that entries of the order of section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & LR Act, 1950 of the said land was not made by Shri Chandrapal Singh, the then Registrar Kanungo, Tehsil Jaspur in R-6 register of Tehsil, Jaspur but actually entered by Anil Kumar, the then Sangrah Amin (attached with Registrar Kanungo, Tehsil Jaspur). Shri Chandrapal Singh, the then Registrar Kanungo and Anil Kumar, the then Sangrah Amin inter alia stated that the said facts in their statement recorded u/s 50(3) of the PMLA, 2002. (g) that, as per Police charge sheet mentioned above, Jagdish Kumar Singh, in connivance with Dinesh Pratap Singh (the then CALA/SLAO, Udham Singh Nagar/Nainital), Bhole Lal (the then Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Jaspur), Vikash Chauhan (Reader/Peshkar in SDM Court Jaspur), Anil Kumar (Sangrah Amin attached with Registrar Kanungo, Tehsil Jaspur) & Middlemen and others managed to get the compensation at non-agricultural rate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accused, he got forged back dated orders and got declared his land as 'Non-Agricultural' under Section 143 of the ZA Act, 1950. Thereafter, he transferred the compensation amount so received from NHAI by creating fixed deposits in his name, in the name of other family members and other individuals/entities in order to layer and integrate the 'Proceeds of Crime' generated through criminal activities related to scheduled offence. (para 9.1 of complaint) 81. It is the case against the petitioner Barinder Singh that he resorted to transfer/round tripping the amount received in his account from the petitioner Jagdish Arora in order to layer and integrate the 'Proceeds of Crime'. (para 9.2 of the complaint) 82. According to the complainant, Arpan Kumar played an important role in facilitating the farmers in getting compensation fraudulently on a higher rate. He and his family members received huge amount. By layering and integrating the amount by way of withdrawing in cash to hide criminal intention, according to the complaint, the petitioner Arpan Kumar projected the tainted money generated out of criminal activities as untainted by way of projecting the amount received as a help ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ively. (b) That the nature of the land was mentioned and notified as agriculture in the Notification No. S.O. 1218 EUR dated 07.05.2014 (Annexure B-27) issued u/s 3D of NH Act, 1956. (c) That Balwant Singh S/o Maharaj Singh did not submit any objection u/s 3C of NH Act, 1956 but Balwant Singh and other interested persons submitted their claim u/s 3G (3) of NH Act, 1956 vide application dated 13.06.2014 inter alia stating that the applicant used their land for agriculture for the livelihood of their family. The said information has been received from the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Udham Singh Nagar/Nainital vide letter dated 29.06.2021 (Annexure B-28). (d) That the NHAI conducted Joint Measuring Survey (JMS) for the said lands which were being acquired for the widening/four laning of NH-74; that the said lands were also mentioned as agriculture as per Joint Measuring Survey (JMS) Report as per information received from the office of Project Director, Nazibabad, NHAI vide letter dated 11.08.2021 (Annexure B-29). (e) That Shri Dayanand Saraswati, the then SDM Kashipur submitted an enquiry report dated 17.03.2017 (Annexure B-14) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad also submitted section 143 report to Bhagat Singh Fonia, the then SDM Kashipur. Further, netiher Bhagat Singh Fonia nor Madan Mohan Padlia produced any documents which showed that the said order was passed on 30.09.2010. (i) That Dinesh Pratap Singh, the then CALA/SLAO despite having clear information that the said land of Balwant Singh has been mentioned as agriculture in the Notification No. S.O. 1218 (E) dated 07.05.2014 (AnnexureB-27) issued u/s 3D of NH Act, 1956, passed an award No. 6/2016 dated 11-05-2016 (Annexure B-58) duly amended vide compensation order No. 20/2016 dated 15.07.2016 (Annexure B-59) for the land at Khasra No. 163, 164, & 198 situated in village Banskheda Kala, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar at non-agriculture rate. (j) that Balwant Singh received total compensation of Rs. 34,05,61,008/- (Rs. 13,94,14,495/- on 24.08.2016, Rs. 7,21,98,045/- & Rs. 12,89,48,468/- on 14.06.2016) fraudulently at non-agriculture rate for his lands acquired for four-laning/widening of NH-74 by NHAI; that the compensation amount was credited, after deducting TDS, in the joint Account No. 913010041809666 (Annexure B-30) maintained at Axis Bank, Kashipur, Udham Sing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onia was the SDM at the relevant time. It is the allegation against him that he had passed forged back dated orders. He was actively involved in the process of activities connected with generation of 'Proceeds of Crime' generated through criminal activities related to scheduled offence. (Para 9.7 of the complaint) 93. The petitioner Sanjay Kumar Chauhan was the Reader in the court of SDM, Kashipur at the relevant time. It is alleged that he had entered forged back dated orders under Section 143 of the ZA Act, 1950. He was actively involved in the process of activities connected with generation of 'Proceeds of Crime' generated through criminal activities related to scheduled offence. (Para 9.8 of the compliant) 94. The petitioner Madan Mohan Padaliya was working as a Naib Tehsildar at the relevant time. He had prepared and submitted back dated reports of Section 143 of the ZA Act, 1950. He was actively involved in the process of activities connected with generation of 'Proceeds of Crime' generated through criminal activities related to scheduled offence. (Para 9.9 of the complaint) 95. The averments as made in the complaint definitely make out a prima facie case against all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner regarding the discrepancies found in the record of said land in revenue documents of SDM Court and Tehsil. (f) That entries of the order of section 143 of UP ZA & LR Act, 1950 of the said land was not made by Shri Chandrapal Singh, the then Registrar Kanungo, Tehsil Jaspur in R-6 register of Tehsil, Jaspur but actually entered by Anil Kumar, the then Sangrah Amin (attached with Registrar Kanungo, Tehsil Jaspur). Shri Chandrapal Singh, the then Registrar Kanungo and Anil Kumar, the then Sangrah Amin inter-alia stated the said facts in their statement recorded u/s 50(3) of the PMLA, 2002. Further as there was no space available for making back dated entry in the R-6 register of village Garhi Hussain, Anil Kumar entered the same in the R-6 register of village Amka of Jaspur Tehsil. (g) The above said fact clearly proves that the said land of Charan Singh was clearly agriculture in nature at the time of land acquisition for widening of the National Highway. (h) That, Charan Singh, in connivance with Dinesh Pratap Singh (the then Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Jaspur), Vikas Chauhan (Reader/Peshkar in SDM Court Jaspur), Anil Kumar (Sangrah Amin attached with Regi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 143 ZA Act, 1950 and the petitioner Vikas Kumar, who was a Reader in the court, had been assigned the role of making back dated entries of back dated orders under Section 143 ZA Act, 1950. 98. The averments as made in the complaint definitely make out a prima facie case against all these petitioners. The cognizance and summoning order passed on 06.09.2022 is quite in detail. The court below has taken into consideration the material placed before it. Having considered the material, cognizance was taken and the petitioners and others have been summoned. This Court does not see any illegality in the summoning order. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the cognizance and summoning order dated 06.09.2022 passed in SST No. 16 of 2022. SPECIAL SESSIONS TRIAL No. 17 of 2022 99. In this case, cognizance and summoning order has been passed on 14.10.2022 against the petitioners Dinesh Pratap Singh, Arpan Kumar, Vikas Kumar, Bhole Lal, Ramesh Kumar (farmer) and Om Prakash (farmer). The complaint is a part of Annexure 15. In para 8.2.3 of it, the case against the petitioners in nutshell has been stated as follows: "8.2.3. That during the course of investigation un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur). Shri Chandrapal Singh, the then Registrar Kanungo and Anil Kumar, the then Sangrah Amin interalia stated that said facts in their statement recorded u/s 50 (3) of the PMLA, 2002. (h) that, as per Police charge sheet mentioned above, Ramesh Kumar and Om Prakash, in connivance with Dinesh Pratap Singh (the then CALA/SLAO, Udham Singh Nagar/Nainital), Bhole Lal (the then Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Jaspur), Vikas Chauhan (Reader/Peshkar in SDM Court Jaspur), Anil Kumar (Sangrah Amin attached with Registrar Kanungo, Tehsil Jaspur) & middlemen and others managed to get the compensation at non- agriculture rate on the basis of forged back dated orders and entries. (i) that Dinesh Pratap Singh, the then CALA/SLAO passed an award No.10/2016 dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure B-40) duly amended vide compensation order No.21/2016 dated 15.07.2016 (Annexure B-41) for the land at Khasra No.188 and 190 situated in Garhi Hussain, Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar at non-agriculture rate; that Om Prakash and Ramesh Kumar managed to get compensation of Rs. 5,91,62,429/- on 01.09.2016 and Rs. 2,57,73,403/- on 07.09.2016 respectively, fraudulently at non-agriculture rate for their lands acquired f....