TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. As per case set up by the prosecution/Directorate of Enforcement, Bankey Behari Group of Companies, namely M/s Deluxe Cold Storage and Food Processors Ltd., M/s Sargodha Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd., M/s Mangal Pulses Pvt. Ltd., M/s Shree Bankey Behari Food Processors Pvt. Ltd., M/s Gagan Pulses Pvt. Ltd., M/s Shree NathJi Roller Flour Mills Ltd., and M/s Teluram Amar Chand & Co, were all engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of pulses, wheat etc. and these business entities had availed working capital funds from several banks. During the period from December 2016 to March 2017, all the aforementioned companies were declared as NPA due to default in repayment of loan amounts. Thereafter, the consortium of Banks had resorted to forensic audit and on the basis of Forensic Audit Reports, the Banks had lodged complaints with CBI, leading to registration of seven FIRs/RCs against seven companies/firms of Bankey Behari Group of Companies. On the strength of seven FIRs/RCs of CBI, seven ECIRs were recorded under PMLA, which are the subject matter of present complaint case. During investigation, from the analysis of relevant documents obtained from the banks, it was revealed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and not out of business surplus, and thus, bank funds were siphoned of and diverted towards discharge of interest and tax liability. Therefore, it became clear during the course of investigation that the entire chicanery had revolved on the fulcrum of paper/bogus sale and purchase for projecting paper/bogus revenue and paper/bogus profit of Bankey Behari Group of Companies, so as to dissipate the proceeds of crime in share capital infusion and investment in fixed assets thereof, and a large portion of proceeds of crime was also used to pay the interest of the Banks. Investigation also revealed that set of debtors were also common for the Bankey Behari Group of Companies. During investigation, the Directorate of Enforcement had also found that the present applicant Dalip Jindal was involved, through his companies, in sales and purchase, when there was no actual movement of goods. 3. In view of these facts, all the seven ECIRs against the Bankey Behari Group of Companies were amalgamated into one complaint, in order to present a holistic view of the criminal conspiracy. The complaint was fled against 44 accused persons. Six accused were arrested in this case including the applicant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used to claim that seven ECIR cannot be clubbed for filing one complaint or that only one complaint should be filed for all the eight ECIR. Otherwise also, this court has already taken cognizance in the two complaints resulting out of eight ECIR registered against Shree Bankey Bihari Group of companies & others including Deluxe Cold Storage, which is accused no. 1 in this case. There is no force in the argument of counsel for the applicant that the present complaint should be considered only as a supplementary complaint to the complaint no. 25/2022 or that since the applicant was not arrested in that complaint/ECIR, he ought to be released in the present complaint. ED is not bound to register an ECIR nor to file one complaint for all the eight ECIR, which otherwise are based on different materials though might be arising out of the same conspiracy. The application seeking release of applicant is not maintainable. 11. Considering this application as one for bail, we have to consider the merits of the application. Coming to the merits, there is material on record to show that the applicant was actively involved in the process of money laundering and did transactions of sale and pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the prosecution cannot be permitted to club seven ECIRs in one complaint and leave out one ECIR to be filed separately through another complaint, and there is no justification as to why all the eight ECIRs have not been clubbed in one complaint though they are alleged to be from the same larger conspiracy. It is submitted that as per the prosecution complaint, the proceeds of crime were the bank funds which had been siphoned of by the Directors of Bankey Bihari Group of Companies, however, the applicant herein holds no position in these companies and thus, admittedly, no direct role has been assigned to the applicant in commission of alleged offence. It is also stated that as per the role of assigned to the applicant in the prosecution complaint, he had "assisted in the process and activity of offence of money laundering" but no mens rea can be attributed to the applicant that he had knowledge of any 'proceeds of crime'. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that the applicant herein has been in judicial custody since 01.12.2022 and considering the period undergone by him i.e. more than 13 months, the applicant should be enlarged on bail even without considering the mer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uments addressed by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and learned Special Counsel for the respondent, and has gone through the material available on record. 9. Since the applicant is an accused for commission of offence of money laundering under PMLA, it will be apposite to take note of Section 45 of PMLA, which reads as under: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given a opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm, or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs: Provided further that the Special Court shall ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng twin conditions would apply to the offence(s) under the 2002 Act itself. The provision post 2018 amendment, is in the nature of no bail in relation to the offence of money-laundering unless the twin conditions are fulfilled. The twin conditions are that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Accused is not guilty of offence of money-laundering and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Considering the purposes and objects of the legislation in the form of 2002 Act and the background in which it had been enacted owing to the commitment made to the international bodies and on their recommendations, it is plainly clear that it is a special legislation to deal with the subject of money-laundering activities having transnational impact on the financial systems including sovereignty and integrity of the countries. This is not an ordinary offence. To deal with such serious offence, stringent measures are provided in the 2002 Act for prevention of money-laundering and combating menace of money-laundering, including for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and to prosecute persons involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the movement of goods from his entity to Bankey Behari Group of Companies or vice -versa. However, he had failed to provide any documents to prove his transactions with Bankey Behari Group of companies as genuine. Further, he had accepted in his statement that he had shown paper purchase and paper sales with Bankey Behari Group of Companies. 13. It is prima facie reflected from the records that the applicant herein, through his entities, had sold goods of about Rs. 314.57 crore and purchased goods of Rs. 200.83 crore, between the period 2013- 14 to 2016-17. However, on account of such false sale and purchase, the applicant had settled these transactions by passing journal voucher entries to the tune of Rs. 201.32 crore between the period 2013-14 to 2016-17, and a sum of Rs. 113.25 crore had been diverted to the bank accounts of the applicant. Therefore, the applicant, through his companies, had carried out a series of sham transactions wherein he had purchased and sold goods with the entities of Bankey Behari Group of Companies and had passed adjustment entries by way of journal vouchers, and about Rs. 111.05 crore were paid to entities controlled by the applicant with intent to....