TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, Lucknow Zonal Office. Facts in Brief 2. The relevant facts of the case briefly are that a case was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Ranchi against that Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi (son of Shri Lal Hemendra Pratap Dehati, residing at Uma Shanti Apartment, Kanke Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand), based on the allegation that after being elected as Member of Jharkhand Legislative Assembly on 13.03.2005 and while working as a Minister of Health and Labour, Government of Jharkhand during the period 07 02.2007 to 12.01.2009 in the Cabinet headed by Shri Madhu Koda, he had acquired properties beyond his known sources of income during the period 13.03.2005 to 24.07.2009. The investigation carried out by CBI, Ranchi in FIR No. RC 5(A)/2010/AHD-Ranchi dated 11.08.2010 u/s 409, 420, 423, 424, 465, 120 B of IPC, section 7, 10, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the scrutiny of the Income Tax Returns of Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi conducted by the Income Tax Department led to the filing of Final Report No. No.07/2011 dated 22.12.2011 invoking section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988 against Shri/Smt. Bhanu Pratap Sahi, Uma Shankar Malviya, P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of front companies of Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi, held with Bank of Maharashtra, Dayanand Vihar, Delhi amounting to Rs. 1,15,80,914/- Consequent to the provisional attachment of the above properties, an Original Complaint (OC) was filed before the Ld. AA under Section 5(5) the Act. The Ld. AA, vide its order dated 12.05.2014, confirmed the provisional attachment of the properties in question. Aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. AA confirming the provisional attachment of their properties, the appellants herein have filed these appeals to this Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the Act. FPA/PMLA/592/LKW/2014 4. The appellant in this case is Ms. Chanda Singh who was Defendant No. 16 before the Ld. AA. A piece of land at Hotwasi Hatia Dam site, Khata No.1, Thana No. 232, Plot No. 1132, 1135, 1229 and 1230, Ranchi standing in the name of her husband, late Sh. Ravindra Pratap Singh was provisionally attached vide the PAO issued on 09.12.2013, which was continued by the Ld. AA vide the impugned order. Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant 5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that she is a lady and that she not very well-educated. On receipt of the notice from Ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ami property of Respondent No.2 (Mr. Bhanu Pratap Sahi), in absence of any evidence, direct or indirect, to show that Mr. Bhanu Pratap Sahi had generated/obtained money by violating the law of the land and, further, without any evidence that Respondent No.2 had given the money for purchase of the said lands, It is contended that no presumption can be drawn that the said lands were purchased out of "proceeds of crime" 10. It is also contended that the Ld. AA has ignored the fact that there is no reason to believe in the present case to come to a conclusion that proceeds of crime generated by Sh. Bhanu Pratap Sahi has been infused in the purchase of the said lands. That the Ld. AA has not correctly understood the difference between the concepts of "reason to suspect" and "reason to believe". 11. It is further contended that the reasons for attachment given in the impugned order that since there is only one boundary wall surrounding both the properties in the name of late Ravindra Pratap Singh and Smt. Santoshi Devi, hence the property belongs to Bhanu Pratap Sahi is unsustainable and against any logical reasoning. 12. It is also submitted that the actual cost of the property....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Station, Nigrani, District-Ranchi, against Sh. Madhu Koda and others for the commission of offences punishable under section 409,420,423,424,465 &120B of IPC,1860 and Section 7,10,11 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 on the basis of a complaint filed by one Sh. Rajiv Sharma vide Complaint No. 01/09, dated 01.07.2009. This case was taken up for investigation by the Vigilance Department of Ranchi, as per order dated 01.07.2009 of the Ld. Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, passed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. 17. A Public Interest Litigation petition (PIL) 4700 of 2008 was also filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi by one Shri Durga Oraon alleging corrupt practices by Shri Madhu Koda and others. Another, PIL bearing no. 2252 of 2009, was filed by one Shri Aman Munda, making similar allegations against S/Shri Madhu Koda and others, seeking directions of the Hon'ble High Court for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Income Tax Department. Subsequently, Directorate of Enforcement was also made one of the Respondents in the WP (PIL) No. 4700 of 2008. 18. The Hon'ble High Court of Jharkh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made by Bhanu Pratap Sahi which far exceeds his total income earned as salary and other known sources of income, after being elected as member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly on 13.03.2005 and while working as a Minister of Health and Labour, Government of Jharkhand, during the check period. 22. It is submitted that a total of Rs. 7,97,96,888/- (including indirect benefit in the form of rent derived on property acquired through Proceeds of Crime), is involved in the offence of money laundering invested by the accused with the assistance/aid of other co-accused in the form of movable and immovable properties, which is Proceed of Crime in terms of Section 2(1) (u) of the PMLA, 2002. 23. During the investigation, it was also revealed that out of the total Proceeds of Crime, one piece of land at Hotwasi Hatia Dam Site, Ranchi valued at Rs. 4,61,018/- had been purchased by Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi in the name of his sister's son-in-law, Ravindra Pratap Singh during the said check period. The said Shri Ravindra Pratap has since passed away and the matter is now contested by the present appellant, Smt. Chanda Singh. 24. It is submitted that Ravindra Pratap Singh could no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an offence of moneylaundering. In other words, the property derived or obtained by the Appellant was the result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The argument of the Appellant that there is no allegation in the charge-sheet filed in the scheduled offence case or in the prosecution complaint that the unaccounted cash deposited by the Appellant is the result of criminal activity, will not come to the aid of the Appellant......." 27. With regard to the admissibility of evidence in light of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, reliance is placed upon the decision in R. Janakiraman v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2006 I AD (Cr.) S.C.85, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: "...it is clear that the bar with section 92 will apply to a proceeding inter-parties to a document and not to a criminal proceeding, where the prosecution is trying to prove that a particular document set of documents are fictitious documents created to offer an explanation for disproportionate wealth. Oral evidence can always be led to show that a transaction under a particular document or set of documents is sham or fictitious or nominal, not inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son is in possession of proceeds of crime does not mean that the Authorities at this stage are obliged to prove the fact beyond doubt that the property in possession was in fact proceeds of crime. All that the Authority is required to show is that there was "substantially probably cause" to form opinion that the property adverted to by the Authorities below do indicate that there was substantially probable cause to form such opinion. At this provisional attachment stage as well when the matter goes before the Adjudicating Authority, by virtue of section 24 of the Act of 2002 the burden of proving that the property possessed by the notices was not proceeds of crime and where untainted properties would be on them." Reliance is also placed by the respondents on the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in B. Rama Raju v. UOI & Others (2011 SCC OnLine AP 152) wherein it was held as follows: "Para 73. Held, where property is in ownership. Control or person of period not accused of having committed an offence under Section 3 and where such property/ proceeds of crime is part of inter-connected transactions involved in money laundering, then and in such event presump....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... noted legislative scheme, it must be clarified that if the order confirming the attachment has attained finality, or if the order of confiscation has been passed or further if the trial of a case for the offence under Section 4 PMLA has commenced, the claim of a party asserting to have acted bonafide or having legitimate interest will have to be inquired into and adjudicated upon only by the special court." Based on the above contentions, the Respondent Directorate has prayed that instant appeal be dismissed, being devoid of merits. Analysis & Findings 31. I have given careful consideration to the material on record and the rival submissions of the parties. It is not in doubt in the present case that Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi stands accused of charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1960 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which are scheduled offences under the PMLA, 2002. As per the Final Report filed by the CBI before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi had acquired disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 6,99,95,964/- during the check period from 13.03.2005 to 24.07.2009 which amounted to 3217.29 percent of his income during the period from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said purchase of land was made. Instead, ITRs for the AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 were filed, that too, after initiation of the investigation by the CBI, which clearly appears to be an afterthought subsequent to the initiation of inquiries and an attempt to justify purchase of the property. Furthermore, the respondents have pointed out that even if the income declared in the above ITRs (Rs.5,51,260/-, including other income Rs.1,66,760/- and agricultural income Rs. 3,84,500/-) is taken at face value, it is still not sufficient to cover the actual value of the purchase of the above land to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- for which reliable evidence has been found during investigations by way of an agreement to sell dated 20.05.2008 entered on non- judicial Stamp Paper No. OIAA 784150 in respect of the above immovable properties. On being confronted, Sh. Basanteshwari Prasad, one of the two sellers confirmed the veracity of the said agreement. 34. Having considered the material on record and the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, I do not find any cogent evidence that the property was acquired out of known sources of income. The appellant has claimed various sources of income, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, by any person "as a result of" criminal activity "relating to" a scheduled offence and even "the value of any such property". The term property was also very widely defined to mean property of every kind, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible. It also includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located. In its landmark judgment in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [SLP (Criminal) No. 4634 of 2014, Order dated 27.07.2022] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: 65. .......... "The sweep of Section 5(1) is not limited to the accused named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It would apply to any person (not necessarily being accused in the scheduled offence), if he is involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime." 37. Insofar as the issue whether the property was 'benami' property or not is concerned, the same is not very material in my view since action for the attachment of the property in this case was initiated under the PMLA, 2002 and the legality or otherwise of the said action also has to be a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owledge". 39. I have considered the submissions carefully and find a discrepancy in the impugned order as regards the value ascribed to the subject property. Paragraph 20(c) of the order refers to the statement of the property dealer Sh. Arun Kumar who has stated on record that the actual payment for the subject land was Rs. 1 crore. It appears from the text that credence has been given by the respondent Directorate to the said statement as otherwise the said statement need not have been referred to in the order. However, paragraph 22 of the order discusses in detail the statement of Sh. Basanteswari Prasad (one of the two joint-sellers of the subject land to the appellant's late husband), to the effect that he and his brother actually received a consideration of Rs. 60,00,000/- against the amount of Rs. 4,37,500/- recorded in the sale deed. This amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- is once again mentioned in Para 23 wherein it is stated that even the extent of income declared in the ITRs are to the tune of Rs.5,51,260/- (other income Rs.1,66,760 and agricultural income Rs.3,84,500) and Rs.5,88,740/ (other income Rs.1,70,640 and agricultural income Rs.4,18,100) during AY 2010-11 and 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so submitted that the appellant had never stated before CBI nor given any statement that she had taken a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- which was arranged by Sh. Pankaj Kumar. It is contended that loan has been taken from Sh. Pankaj Kumar by the husband of the appellant which Sh. Pankaj Kumar as denied under threat and force from CBI. 45. It is submitted that the order of the Ld. AA has ignored the definition of 'proceed of crime' under PMLA, 2002. 'Proceed 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 value or such property. In the absence of any evidence, direct or indirect to show that Sh. Bhanu Pratap Sahi had generated/obtained money by violating the law of the land and further without any evidence that he had given the money for purchase of the said lands, no presumption can be drawn that the said lands were purchased out of 'proceeds of crime'. It is further contended that there was no 'reason to believe' in the present case and that the Ld. AA has not correctly understood the difference between the concepts of "reason to suspect" and "reason....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocuments, i.e., the statement of the appellant before CBI was not on record before the Ld. AA, hence the contention regarding comparison of the statement of appellant before CBI and ED is illegal, against the principles of natural justice and cannot be the basis of passing a judgment. 49. The following further submissions have been made on behalf of the Appellant : 50. That ITRs can be furnished at any time before the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year. 51. That the appellant had herein stated before CBI stating that she had taken a loan of the Rs. 2,00,000/- which was arranged by Sh. Pankaj Kumar, a friend/ colleague of Shri Anirudh Pratap Sengar. The loan was taken by her husband from Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. Pankaj Kumar denied it on account of threat from the CBI. Furthermore, the said statement, even if it had been made by the appellant, was inadmissible in evidence. 52. That the appellant, in her statement dated 25.01.2012 under section 50 had stated that she is a housewife and gets income from dairy farming both from paternal and natural houses. 53. That appellant had got a sell receipt for sell of jewellery Rs. 4,50,000/- to Kanchan Jewell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted from gifts given by her husband from time to time. Thus, in her statement before the ED u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 she changed her stand on the issue of loan. Before CBI she had stated that she had arranged Rs. 2,00,000/- as loan from Sh. Pankaj Kumar, friend/colleague of Sh. Anirudh Pratap Sengar (her husband) but before ED she had stated that she arranged Rs 3,00,000 as loan from her mother. 60. The respondents have further pointed out that in the charge-sheet filed by the CBI wherein the appellant Santoshi Devi is one the accused (A-6), it is inter-alia mentioned that the deal for purchase of land was actually negotiated by Sh. U.S Malviya (A-2), the then OSD to Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi; that Sh. Anirudh Pratap Sengar, the appellant's husband, was a lowly-placed employee of Hindalco, Muri and did not have the financial capability to purchase the said property; that the claim of loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Shri Pankaj Kumar was false; and that the jeweller to whom the jewellery was claimed to have been sold by the appellant for Rs 4,50,000/- denied that jewellery was sold to him by the appellant. On the contrary, he stated that jewellery worth Rs 4,50,000/- was actually purcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "............ the fact the respondents could have acted only if there was reason to believe that a person is in possession of proceeds of crime does not mean that the authorities at this stage are obliged to prove the fact beyond doubt that the property in possession was in fact proceeds of crime. All the authority is required to show is that there was substantially probable cause to form opinion that the property under attachment is proceeds of crime" 65. As regards the argument that there are no charges under Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 of holding benami properties either on Respondent No. 2 or on the Appellant either in the FIR or in the chargesheet filed by the CBI dated 22.12.2011 and such allegations are not in accordance with law and not tenable, the respondent has cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Som Prakash v. State of Delhi (1974) 4 SCC 84 wherein it was held: " ....... Of course, our social milieu is so vitiated by a superstitious belief that any official can be activised by illegal gratification, so confidential is the technique of give and take in which the whitecollar offender is adept and so tough is the fore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....69. In response to the contention of the appellant that the alleged relied-upon document was not on record before the Ld. AA, hence, the contention regarding comparison of the statement of Appellant before CBI & ED is illegal, against the principles of natural justice and cannot be basis of passing of judgement, it is submitted by the respondents that the charge sheet of the CBI was part of the relied upon document in the OC filed before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. 70. With regard to the submission of the appellant that the statement given u/s 50 of the PMLA has stated that she is a housewife and gets income from dairy farming both from her paternal and maternal houses and declared her income from business, the respondents state that the appellant is trying to mislead the Hon'ble Tribunal as the appellant, in course of her statement u/s 50 of the PMLA, has categorically stated her profession as housewife and nowhere in the statement has she stated that she is getting income from dairy farming. 71. It is who pointed out that the claim of loan by the appellant from her mother is also not reflected in the ITR of the appellant for the relevant period. The fact of non-refl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ections are the scheduled offence under schedule to PMLA. In the said charge-sheet, it has been stated that the properties are the benami properties of Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi. 77. In light of the above contentions submitted by the respondents that the order passed by the Ld. AA is just, fair, reasonable and towards the ends of justice. The same is not based on the assumptions and presumptions as contended by the appellant. The Provisional Attachment Order and the order dated 12.05.2014 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority are based on the evidences gathered in the investigation by the Respondent No 1. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the order of the Ld. AA is sustainable and the present appeal be dismissed. Analysis and Findings 78. I have given careful consideration to the material on record and the rival contentions of the parties. It is not in doubt in the present case that Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi stands accused of charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1960 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which are scheduled offences under the PMLA, 1999. As per the Final Report filed by the CBI before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was not made before the CBI, but before ED, as much as Rs. 7,05,000/- was sought to be explained away a 'streedhan'. Before the CBI, the appellant did not provide any explanation whatsoever for the remaining amount over and above Rs. 6,50,000/- over and above the amounts stated to have been from loan taken from mother and proceeds from sale of jewellery. The appellant has controverted the above submissions of the respondents. It is inter alia contended that the appellant had never claimed before CBI that she took any loan from the Sh Pankaj Kumar. It is also contended that the appellant in her statement before ED on 25.01.2013 had categorically stated that she had received Rs. 4,50,000/- from Kanchan Jewellers, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. The appellant had got the sale receipt which was seized by the CBI during the search but the same has not been relied upon by the CBI. 81. Without getting into veracity of the factual contentions from either side, I find that the explanation which the appellant presently stands by is that out of the total consideration of Rs. 14,55,000/-, Rs. 4,50,000/- was arranged by sale of old jewellery, Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of loan from her mother and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iated by Sh. U.S. Malviya, the then OSD to Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi. This has not been denied by the appellant. Moreover, the consideration for the same is stated to have paid in cash. All these facts taken individually as well as viewed in their totality clearly point to the fact that the property in fact belonged to Sh. Sahi and were purchased out of his proceeds of crime and the present appellant was only a name-lender. 84. I also do not find any merit in the contention that the Ld. AA has not considered the definition of "proceeds of crime" under PMLA, 2002. Even at the relevant time (prior to the amendments of 2015 and 2019), the definition of proceeds of crime took within its sweep any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person "as a result of" criminal activity "relating to" a scheduled offence and even "the value of any such property". The term property was also very widely defined to mean property of every kind, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible. It also includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located. In its landmark judgment in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Angesh Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. respectively. The directors of the two companies at the relevant time were Shri Prashant Kumar Singh and Shri Abhishek Singh, two nephews (sister's sons) of the main accused, Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahi. The following properties of the appellant companies were attached: (i) 5 immovable properties acquired/booked in the name of the two appellant companies valued in all at Rs. 2,84,65,500/- (ii) 6 movable properties in the name of private limited companies at Delhi, equal to the value of loans and advances taken from Sonanchal Buildcon and Angesh Trading, valued in all at Rs. 1,40,72,000/- (iii) 7 immovable properties acquired by certain companies after receipt of loans and advances from M/s Sonanchal Buildcon and M/s Angesh Trading being relatable to proceeds of crime valued in all at Rs. 2,11,44,000/- (iv) Movable Properties (bank account balances) of M/s Sonanchal Buildcon and M/s Angesh Trading in 4 accounts with Bank of Maharashtra, Dayanand Vihar, Maharashtra total Rs. 1,15,80,914/-.The attachment of the aforementioned properties was duly confirmed by the Ld. AA through the impugned o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el, Chartered Accountant/ authorised representative of these in his statement u/s 50 of the PMLA dated 04/05.10.2012 and 23.11,2012, respectively. Against receipt of Rs.5,68,35,000/- during 2008-09, in the garb of share application money by M/s Sonanchal. Buildcon (P) Ltd., a total of 70,870 shares have been shown to have been allocated in the books of account of M/s Sonanchal Buildcon (P) Ltd. to three companies, namely, M/s Atul Jalan Portfolio & Finance Pvt. Ltd., M/s Raj Rani Pvt Ltd., M/s Mridul Securities Pvt. Ltd. Notably, the above shares have been shown to have been allotted in the books of account on 31.03.2011, i.e., after the registration of FIR by the CBI on 11.08.2010, though the share application money has been received during the period 08.01.2008 to 24.03.2009. Investigations revealed that in fact no such shares were issued to/received by the entities who had provided the share application money. 92. Furthermore, the shares of both the Sonanchal Buildcon and Angesh Trading are shown to have been allotted at a premium of Rs. 490/- per share on 31.03.2011 as against earning per share (EPS) of Rs. 36.57 and Rs. 1.43 respectively, during FY 2010-11 as reflected i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeds amounting to a total of Rs. 4,24,19,987/- flowed back into the accounts of the appellant companies; that loans and advances to the tune of a total of Rs. 3,40,10,000/- were made by M/s Sonanchal Buildcon and M/s Angesh Trading to different Delhi-based private companies. Since the loans and advances taken by these companies from M/s Sonanchal Buildcon and Angesh Trading had got mixed up/intermingled with the funds of their own companies, separation of funds received from M/s Sonanchal Buildcon and Angesh Trading was not possible and certain properties had been purchased from the funds available in the books of account of the said Delhi-based after receipt of the loans and advances from Sonanchal and Angesh and, therefore, carried the taint of proceeds of crime, the properties acquired by the companies were treated as having the taint of proceeds of crime and were accordingly attached under section 5 of the PMLA, 2002. 97. Accordingly, for the reasons summarized above, the properties mentioned in Para-1 (supra) were attached. Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant 98. Detailed submissions have been made on behalf of the Appellant. It is firstly informed that at present on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elongs to Jalan family, more specifically to Mr. R.S Jalan who was an old-time investor. 103. It is also contended that the witnesses examined by ED under PMLA have stated that they received money from Mr. Atul Jalan and none of them have taken the name of either Mr. Bhanu Pratap Sahi or his friend Mr. Ajay Singh or his nephew Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh. 104. It is submitted that the Ld. AA failed to appreciate the fact the ED has to prove that the alleged properties of Appellant are Benami and the ED has to prove that the Appellant company is not the real owner of the properties. It is also contended that in the absence of any link between the Appellant's property and scheduled offence the present order of attachment is unsustainable in eyes of law and as such deserves to be set aside. 105. It is also contended that that there is no iota of evidence on record that the funds infused in the Appellant company belongs to Bhanu Pratap Sahi. Based on the above submissions, the Appellant has prayed that the order of confirmation passed in PAO No.347 of 2013 in ECIR No./02/PAT/2009/AD whereby and whereunder the Ld. AA has confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Director of M/s Atul Jalan Portfolio and Finance Pvt. Ltd., M/s Raj Rani Secuirites Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mridul Securities Pvt. Ltd. with particular amount of cash plus 0.1%, for conversion in cheque. The cash was handed over to a few grain merchants along with 0.05% commission. The grain merchants, against purported allotment of shares to them from M/s Raj Rani Securities Pvt. Ltd., deposited equivalent amount of cheque into the account of M/s Raj Rani Securities Pvt. Ltd. the money was further transmitted through cheque to the account of M/s Sonanchal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Angesh Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 109. Sh. Atul Jalan, Director of M/s Atul Jalan Portfolio & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd, in course of his statement dated 23.11.2012, admitted the following: (a) M/s Raj Rani Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mridul Securities Pvt. Ltd. are sister concerns of M/s Atul Jalan Portfolio & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. (b) That he looked after the day to day working of the sister concerns of this company (c) That the cash amount, along with 0.05% commission was passed on to one Sh. Arun Gopal Bansal (d) Sh. Arun Gopal Bansal managed the cheques from various grain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the claim of the applicant at this stage is premature, mischievous, preposterous and hence totally untenable. The averments and claim made by the appellants are frivolous, concocted and devoid of merit and deserve to be summarily rejected. 113. Finally, it is also submitted that the proceedings under PMLA, 2002 stand on their own and are quite independent, distinct and separate from the proceedings arising in the scheduled offences. The same was reiterated by the judgement delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand vide its order dated 22.03.2014 in the matter of Narendra Mohan Singh & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi & Anr. 114. In light of the above, the respondents have prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. Analysis and Findings 115. I have given careful consideration to the facts on record and the rival submissions of the parties. The first contention of the appellant is that the Ld. AA has ignored the fact that there is no reason to "believe" in the present case to come to a conclusion that the present Appellant company whose directors are nephews of Mr. Bhanu Pratap Sahi has been infused with proceeds of crime generated by Mr. Sahi. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the shares of both the Sonanchal Buildcon and Angesh Trading are shown to have been allotted at a premium of Rs. 490/- per share on 31.03.2011 as against earing per share (EPS) of Rs. 36.57 and Rs. 1.43 respectively during FY 2010-11 as reflected in the statutory returns filed by the companies before the Registrar of Companies (RoC) for which there is no economic rationale. 116. During the course of investigation under PMLA, 2002, Sh. Ankit Goel, CA and authorized representative of M/s Atul Jalan Portfolio and Finance Pvt. Ltd., M/s Raj Rani Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mridul Securities Pvt. Ltd. was examined u/s 50 of the PMLA on 04/05.10.2012 and he accepted that M/s Sonanchal Buildcon P. Ltd. and M/s Angesh Trading Co. P. Ltd. did not issue any share certificates to M/s Atul Jalan Portfolio and Finance Pvt. Ltd. as money in cash was paid to the company with the request to adjust the same amount of money to the accounts of M/s Sonanchal Buildcon and M/s Angesh Trading against commission of 0.01% on the total amount of the adjustment. Also, the share certificates were not received by M/s Raj Rani because equivalent amount of cash plus 0.1% commission in cash was paid to M/s Raj Rani Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....10.2012 and 23.11,2012; that shares were shown to have been allotted in the books of account only on 31.03.2011, i.e., after the registration of FIR by the CBI on 11.08.2010, whereas the so-called share application money had been received during the period 08.01.2008 to 24.03.2009, and further that investigations revealed that in fact no such shares were issued to/received by the entities who had provided the share application money; charging of a premium of Rs. 490/- per share on 31.03.2011 as against earning per share (EPS) of Rs. 36.57 and Rs. 1.43 respectively during FY 2010-11; the statement of Sh. Ankit Goel, CA that M/s Sonanchal Buildcon P. Ltd. and M/s Angesh Trading Co. P. Ltd. did not issue any share certificates to M/s Atul Jalan Portfolio and Finance Pvt. Ltd. as money in cash was paid to the company with the request to adjust the same amount of money to the accounts of M/s Sonanchal Buildcon and M/s Angesh Trading against commission of 0.01% on the total amount of the adjustment, and that share certificates were not received by M/s Raj Rani because equivalent amount of cash plus 0.1% commission in cash was paid to M/s Raj Rani Securities by M/s Sonanchal Buildcon and....