TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Vigilance Police Station, Ranchi for institution of F.I.R. and investigation of the case and accordingly the officer-in-charge, Vigilance Police Station registered the F.I.R. on 02.07.2009 vide Vigilance P.S. Case No. 09/2009 alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 423, 424, 465, 120B, I.P.C. and sections 7, 10, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI came into picture by virtue of order of the Hon'ble High Court in a PIL referring the matter to CBI (order dated 04.08.2010 in W.P.(PIL) No. 4700/2008 (Durga Oroan Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors) C.B.I took over the investigation from Vigilance Bureau on 11.08.2010 by registering Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9/2009 as R.C 5(A)2010/AHD-R. Upon investigation , C.B.I. filed chargesheet no. 6/2010 dated 12.11.2010 and charge-sheet no. 1 dated 21.05.2013. 4. On the basis of the allegation of commission of aforesaid offences, which fall in the schedule of the Prevention of Money Lanundering Act, an inquiry into money laundering was undertaken by the Directorate of Enforcement and Enforcement Directorate separately registered a proceeding/case vide ECIR No. 02/PAT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MA1 2016 A0040 and the quashment of two FIRs by the High Court of the Schedule Offence and of the letter dated 16-5-2019 of the IT Department and also the observations made by the adjudicating authority in the order dated 25-2-2019, the evidence of continuation of offence in ECR CEZO 19/2016 is not sufficient. The Department itself is unable to collect any incriminating material and also not produced before this Court even after a lapse of 5½ years to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. From the material collected by the Agency, they themselves are prima facie not satisfied that the offence under PMLA can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The argument advanced by the learned ASG regarding pendency of the appeal against the order of adjudicating authority is also of no help because against the order of the appellate authority also, remedies are available. Thus, looking to the facts as discussed hereinabove and the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] and Ashoo Surendranath Tewari [Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI, (2020) 9 SCC 636 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 209] , the chanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s competent to quash the entire proceeding. 11. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate submits that so far as company namely, Quantum Power Tech Private Limited is concerned the case of that company has already been dismissed by this Court by order dated 19.09.2022. He further submits that Brajesh Kumar Singh and this petitioner are founder director of Quantum Power Tech Private Limited. He draws the attention of the Court at running page 93 internal page 27 para 6 of the complaint and submits that petitioner is director of the said company and responsible for day to day business affairs and conduct of the company and huge proceeds of crime have been knowingly concealed and transferred in this company by them. He further submits that this petitioner is still absconding and he has not appeared before the Court. He submits that process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner which was challenged by the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 206 of 2012 which was dismissed by this Court holding that the inspite of interim protection provided to the petitioner, he has not appeared before the Court. On this ground, he submits that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he basis of materials on record and the only thing the Court is required is to apply its judicial mind and in the case in hand the learned court has taken cognizance by a speaking order. There is no illegality in the order taking cognizance. In the case of Dayle De'souza v. Government of India, Through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner(supra) relied by Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners that case was arising out under the Minimum Wages Act and considering section 22 of Minimum Wages Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at its paragraph nos.15, 16 and 17 which have been referred hereinabove. In the case in hand, some of the petitioners are Directors and the companies are also the petitioners and hence that judgment is not helping to the petitioners. In Cr.M.P.No.2193 of 2018 the facts and circumstances of that case was different in which section 276(B) of the Income Tax Act was the subject matter for consideration. Admittedly, section 23 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 speaks of presumption in interconnected transactions and the burden of proof is on the accused in light of section 9 24 of the said Act which can be proved in the trial. These two....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that a sum of Rs. 8,70,00,000/- was deposited and a sum of Rs. 7,99,35,000/- was withdrawn at various dates in the account of the company at PNB, Hinoo, Ranchi, HDFC Bank Ltd, Lalpur, Ranchi and Bank of Baroda, Main Road Ranchi. Rohitash Krishnan and Brajesh Kumar Singh got M/s Quantum Powertch Pvt. Ltd. incorporated on 28.03.2008. That, Binod Sinha had given them a sum of approximately Rs. 8,70 crores. The said company was registered with the office of Registrar of Companies , New Delhi and its official address is at B-271, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. Subsequently the address of the company was shifted to the residential address of Shri Rohitas Krishnan at Hawai Nagar, Road No. 7, Ranchi. Both Shri B.K. Singh and Shri Rohitas Krishnan were holding 50% of the shares each in the company and only these two persons were responsible for day to day affair of the company and it is also evident from periodical returns submitted by the said company to the Registrar of Companies (RoC), the documents submitted by the company to the bank alongwith the Account Opening Form and the ITR filed by the company to IT Department that Brajesh Kumar Singh and Rohitash Krishnan were the Authorized Sig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment has also closed the case and in that scenario the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that finding of the High court is not sustainable. Para 19 and 21 of the said judgment is quoted here-in-below:- "19. On the basis of the intimation given by the IT Department and registration of the FIR by CBI which was closed, the Directorate of ED registered ECIR/CEZO/19/2016 under Sections 3, 4 and 8(5) of PMLA. After the said FIR, Deputy Director (ED) passed an order under Section 5(1) of PMLA on 1-6-2017 attaching the property. For confirmation of attachment, OC No. 785 of 2017 was filed by the Department which is rejected by the adjudicating authority while exercising the power under Section 5(5) of PMLA. The adjudicating authority observed as thus: "It is pertinent to note that about two years have lapsed since passing of the said bail order dated 17-3-2017, and over two years have passed after filing of FIR, however till date no final report is filed by the investigating officer concerned investigating the scheduled offences. Most material is the fact that so far no bank or bank officers are identified, either by the officer investigating the Schedule Offences or ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng as to what quantum and as to what part of the seized amount of Rs 33,47,92,000 in the form of movable properties is related to the Schedule Offences. The formation of the reasonable belief only for part of the seized amount and yet proceeding to attach the entire seized amount vitiates the entire reasonable belief and renders it as illegal. It is seen from the reasonable belief that such an exercise was not carried out by the Deputy Director. The reasonable belief formed by the Deputy Director that the new currency, which were seized by the Income Tax Authorities are nothing but the currency received in lieu of exchange of old currency notes (demonetised currency) inclusive of commission for such exchange received by S/Shri J. Sekar Reddy, M. Premkumar, S. Srinivaslu, S. Ramachandran and K. Rethinam, is neither based on any specified material nor is justified. It is therefore, concluded that the reasonable belief formed by the Deputy Director in this regard cannot be sustained, the same having been not based on any specifically material and the same is merely surmises, conjectures and speculation. Considering the material in OC, the written replies/additional written....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kar Alias Sekar Reddy(supra)is not helping the petitioner. So far as judgment relied by Mr. Rai in Ram Kishan Rohtagi (supra), the fact of that case is on different footing. That case was arising out of Food Adulteration Act and the director of the company has been made accused on presumption and in that scenario the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given finding that when there is no averment of the role of director and who is looking day to day affairs of the company, the prosecution is bad. Where as in the case in hand there is averment in the complaint that the petitioner is looking after day to day affairs of the company. The petitioner is facing charge in money laundering case. How the white collor criminals affect the fibre of country economic structure, has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the several judgments. This crime has been made in well planned manner and not in the hit of moment as occurred in section 302 of I.P.C. Further the petitioner has not taken care of the order of the High Court whereby he has been provided interim protection. He has violated the order pursuant to that process of 82 Cr.P.C has been issued against the petitioner which has been challe....