AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 141 of 2022 [Bariatu P.S.] dated 04.06.2022, lodged at Bariatu police station, Ranchi Jharkhand under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against one Pradeep Bagchi on the basis of complaint of one Sri Dilip Sharma, Tax Collector, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, for submission of forged papers i.e., Aadhar Card, Electricity Bill and Possession letter for obtaining holding number 0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5. Investigation revealed that by submitting the forged documents, a holding number was obtained in name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19, Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring 455.00 decimals approx. at Ranchi. 4.Investigation further revealed that the above property belonged to Late B.M. Laxman Rao which was given to the Army and had been in the possession of the Defence, in occupation of the Army since independence. Investigation also reveals that by way of creating a fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was sold to a company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for which the consideration amount was shown Rs. 7 crores which was highly under value and out of this amount payment amounting to Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s has been taken note of in the order of remand, since is not available in the communication made at the time of arrest hence the arrest itself is illegal not in consonance with the provision of Section 19(1) of the PML Act, 2002. II.The consequential argument has also been advanced that since the remand order itself is bad and illegal and hence the very custody of the petitioner is bad in the eye of law. III.Therefore, submission has been made that the law is well settled that if the foundation will go the subsequent action will also collapse. IV.Further ground has been taken that the ECIR has been said to be recorded on 21.10.2022 while the alleged transfer of the land in question is prior to the aforesaid ECIR and hence it cannot be said to be predicate offence on the basis of definition of "proceeds of crime' reason being that the proceeds of crime will only be said to be attracted if any proceeds has been acquired by one or the other on account of the property in question, and in the case at hand if the entire complaint will be considered there is nothing on record to suggest that any benefit had been obtained by the petitioner said to come under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929and Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 as also the reference of judgment of United Kingdom in the case of Regina Vs. GH [(2015) UKSC 24]. XIII.Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon"ble Apex Court in the case of Chinna Gowda Vs. State of Mysore [(1963) 2 SCR 617] and Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana & Ors [(2023) 9 SCC 587]. XIV. Learned counsel for the petitioner based upon the aforesaid ground has vehemently argued that it is a fit case where the petitioner is fit to be released from judicial custody taking into consideration that he is languishing in judicial custody for his no fault rather on the ground of failing to discharge his official duty, even though there is no ingredient of Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002. Argument on behalf of Respondent-ED: 11. Per contra, Mr. Anil Kumar, [learned senior counsel] learned ASGI appearing for the respondent-ED has taken the following ground in opposition: I.Petitioner is directly involved in commission of crime in facilitating in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he capacity of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, has also directed the Sub-Registrar, District Land Registry Office, Ranchi to get the land registered. It has been submitted that under the notification of the Government, the Deputy Commissioner is also the District Registrar but as per the delegation of power the Deputy Commissioner in the capacity of District Registrar has got no power to register the land rather the power is vested with the Sub-Registrar of the concerned district land registration office but even then, the petitioner has interfered with the affairs of Sub-registrar for the purpose of getting the land registered in favour of accused persons. VII.These activities of the petitioner in the capacity of Deputy Commissioner cannot be said to be in discharge of official duty rather it is only in connivance with the other accused persons, namely, Pradeep Bagchi, Amit Kumar Agarwal and others who are ultimate beneficiary and hence it can well be concluded that due to illegal act of the petitioner the other accused persons have got the valuable property in meager amount and the same has been deposited in the accounts of the company, which is owned by Amit Kumar Agarwal.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) as also the Explanation part of Section 3 of PML Act, submission has been made by learned counsel for the respondent-ED that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner that no offence under Section 3 of the PML Act has been committed as Section 3 of the PML Act starts from the word 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 with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-ED based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is not a fit case for grant of regular bail in favour of the petitioner. Analysis: 13. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the argument advanced on behalf of parties as also the judgments relied upon by the parties and other materials available on record. 14. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to first discuss herein some of the provision of law as contained under the PML Act, 2002 along with its obj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....national community to obviate such threat are outlined below:- (a) the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, to which India is a party, calls for prevention of laundering of proceeds of drug crimes and other connected activities and confiscation of proceeds derived from such offence. (b) the Basle Statement of Principles, enunciated in 1989, outlined basic policies and procedures that banks should follow in order to assist the law enforcement agencies in tackling the problem of money-laundering. (c) the Financial Action Task Force established at the summit of seven major industrial nations, held in Paris from 14th to 16th July, 1989, to examine the problem of money-laundering has made forty recommendations, which provide the foundation material forcomprehensive legislation to combat the problem of money-laundering. The recommendations were classified under various heads. Some of the important heads are- (i) declaration of laundering of monies carried through serious crimes a criminal offence; (ii) to work out modalities of disclosure by financial institutions regarding reportable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent in value held within the country or abroad. 21. In the explanation it has been referred that for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include 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. The aforesaid explanation has been inserted in the statute book by way of Act 23 of 2019. 22. It is, thus, evident that the reason for giving explanation under Section 2(1)(u) is by way of clarification to the effect that whether as per the substantive provision of Section 2(1)(u), the 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 but by way of explanation the proceeds of crime has been given broader implication by 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 relatabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.]" 27. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that "offence of money-laundering" means 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 with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. 28. It is further evident that the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever. 29. The punishment for money laundering has been provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002. 30. Section 50 of the Act, 2002 confers power upon the authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence. For ready reference, Section 50....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court have decided the issue by taking into consideration the object and intent of the Act, 2002. 31. The interpretation of the condition which is to be fulfilled while arresting the person involved in the predicate offence has been made as would appear from paragraph 265. For ready reference, relevant paragraphs is being referred as under: "265. To put it differently, the section as it stood prior to 2019 had itself incorporated the expression "including", which is indicative of reference made to the different process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the principal provision (as also the Explanation) predicates that if a person is found to be directly or indirectly involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime must be held guilty of offence of moneylaundering. If the interpretation set forth by the petitioners was to be accepted, it would follow that it is only upon projecting or claiming the property in question as untainted property, the offence would be complete. This would undermine the efficacy of the legislative intent behind Section 3 of the Act and also will be in disregard of the view expressed by the FATF in co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of matters specified in sub-section (1). This is in reference to Section 13 of the 2002 Act dealing with powers of Director to impose fine in respect of acts of commission and omission by the banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries. From the setting in which Section 50 has been placed and the expanse of empowering the Director with same powers as are vested in a civil Court for the purposes of imposing fine under Section 13, is obviously very specific and not otherwise. 425. Indeed, sub-section (2) of Section 50 enables the Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director to issue summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. We have already highlighted the width of expression "proceeding" in the earlier part of this judgment and held that it applies to proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court, as the case may be. Nevertheless, sub-section (2) empowers the authorised officials to issue summon to any person. We fail to understand as to how Article 20(3) w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of a dumb witness (See section 119 of the Evidence Act) or the like. "To be a witness" is nothing more than "to furnish evidence", and such evidence can be furnished through the lips or by production of a thing or of a document or in other modes. So far as production of documents is concerned, no doubt Section 139 of the Evidence Act says that a person producing a document on summons is not a witness. But that section is meant to regulate the right of cross examination. It is not a guide to the connotation of the word "witness", which must be understood in its natural sense, i.e., as referring to a person who furnishes evidence. Indeed, every positive volitional act which furnishes evidence is testimony, and testimonial compulsion connotes coercion which procures the positive volitional evidentiary acts of the person, as opposed to the negative attitude of silence or submission on his part. Nor is there any reason to think that the protection in respect of the evidence so procured is confined to what transpires at the trial in the court room. The phrase used in article 20(3) is "to be a witness" and not to "appear as a witness". It follows that the protection afforded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ever, after further inquiry on the basis of other material and evidence, the involvement of such person (noticee) is revealed, the authorised officials can certainly proceed against him for his acts of commission or omission. In such a situation, at the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, if his/her statement is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official, the consequences of Article 20(3) or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play to urge that the same being in the nature of confession, shall not be proved against him. Further, it would not preclude the prosecution from proceeding against such a person including for consequences under Section 63 of the 2002 Act on the basis of other tangible material to indicate the falsity of his claim. That would be a matter of rule of evidence. 434. It is, thus, clear that the power invested in the officials is one for conducting inquiry into the matters relevant for ascertaining existence of proceeds of crime and the involvement of persons in the process or activity connected therewith so as to initiate appropriate action against such person in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion (1) in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. 37. The explanation is also there as under sub-section (2) thereof which is for the purpose of removal of doubts. A clarification has been inserted that the expression "Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable offences and nonbailable offences notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and accordingly the officers authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfilment of conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions enshrined under this section. 38. The fact about the implication of Section 45 has been interpreted by the Hon"ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) at paragraphs-372-374. 39. For ready reference, the said paragraphs are being referred as under: "372. Section 45 has been amended vide Act 20 of 2005, Act 13 of 2018 and Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further been observed that as per the statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in view of the overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, under Section 71 of the PML Act. 41. For ready reference, paragraph-17 of the said judgment is quoted as under: "17. As well settled by now, the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory. They need to be complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of moneylaundering. 44. The Hon"ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at paragraph - 30 that the conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA. Section 65 requires that the provisions of Cr.P.C shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2002 is relevant to be discussed herein because the same has been taken as ground for release of petitioner on bail by advancing the argument if the complaint only cognizance has been taken only against the transfer of one piece of land of Cheshire land but subsequently the three pieces of land has also been added hence the arrest cannot be said to be in consonance withthe parameter as provided under Section 19. Discussion on the argument advanced by the parties: 48. Now, after having discussed the judgments passed by the Hon"ble Apex Court on the issue of various provisions of the Act, 2002, this Court, is now proceeding to answer the legal grounds as has been raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 49. It has been informed that the petitioner has also filed an application for grant of compulsory bail but the same is now pending before the Hon"ble Apex Court. 50. It also needs to refer herein that Cr. Misc. Application was also filed challenging the order of remand and since regular bail application was filed hence the said petition was not pressed with a liberty to take all the grounds at appropriate stage. 51. This Court before coming to the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cy to send the case diary along with the remand report so that the Magistrate can appreciate the factual scenario and apply his mind whether there is a warrant for police remand or justification for judicial remand or there is no need for any remand at all. It is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to apply his mind and not to pass an order of remand automatically or in a mechanical manner. 25. It is apt to note that in Madhu Limaye, In re [(1969) 1 SCC 292 : AIR 1969 SC 1014] it has been stated that: (SCC p. 299, para 12) "12. Once it is shown that the arrests made by the police officers were illegal, it was necessary for the State to establish that at the stage of remand the Magistrate directed detention in jail custody after applying his mind to all relevant matters." 54. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the power conferred to the Court to remand a person in the judicial custody if there is imputation of prima facie case said to be committed under cognizable offence. The word "remand" bifurcates that whether the same is for one allegation or more than one allegation, rather irrespective of number of allegations even if a person has committ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve Detention Act, 1950 the fundamental right as guaranteed under Indian constitution to freedom is to be suspended because such type of detention not in a case of pending trial. 62. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant has taken aid of Section 7 of the Prevention of Detention Act 1950, where the grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to the person affected by the order has been referred and by referring the same, it has been tried to be impressed that a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made, and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government. 63. The said provision since is under the Prevention of Detention Act and hence the same will not be applicable in the matter of other penal offences herein the PML Act, 2002. If the content of Section 19(1) will be taken into consideration then it would be evident that if the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer authorized i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n by the larger Bench of the Hon"ble Apex Court since the reason was communicated to the petitioner within 24 hours and hence, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected. 67. It needs to refer herein the definition of "proceeds of crime" as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 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, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad. 68. In the explanation of the aforesaid provision it has been referred that for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include 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. The aforesaid explanation has been inserted in the statute book by way of Act 23 of 2019. 69. This Court, in order to reach to the conclusion as to whether the material has been available before the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ersons. 9. In connivance with the above stated persons, Mr. Chhavi Ranjan, the then DC Ranchi verbally directed the Circle Officer Manoj Kumar to visit the Registrar of Assurances (Records), Kolkata. Manoj Kumar deputed the Circle Inspector Birendra Kumar Sahu and others to visit Kolkata for the said purpose. They filed application to get a certified copy of the deeds through one private broker and returned to Ranchi. The Circle Inspector received a deed by way of a private courier after a couple of days which indicated that the owner of the property in the records of registrar of assurances, Kolkata was Prafulla Bagchi. Accordingly on receipt of the sale deed, report was prepared by the Circle Officer Manoj Kumar wherein he was directed by Mr. Chhavi Ranjan to mention that as per the transfer of property Act, the first right on the abovesaid property is of Pradip Bagchi. A copy of the sale report was also made to the ADSR, Ghasi Ram Pingua (which was unusual and extraordinary step) for his information which was meant to direct the DSR to register the property in name of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. based on the report of the Circle Officer, which in turn was backed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umar Agarwal. During the custody, the said Afshar All, Saddam Hussain werealso confronted with Mr. Chhavi Ranjan at this office wherein dose confidant of Prem Prakash and Circle Officer Manoj Kumar were also present. All these persons stated before Mr. Chhavi Ranjan that he had directed the Circle Officer to conduct a verification on the claim of Pradip Bagchi over property from Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. 13. Investigation reveals that Mr. Chhavi Ranjan facilitated Prem Prakash & Amit Kumar Agarwal in acquiring properties deceitfully. He is one of the associates of Amit Kumar Agarwal. The CBI, New Delhi has lodged an FIR against Amit Kumar Agarwal and others for conspiracy to malign the image of Judiciary and other government officials. In the said FIR, the CBI has also enquired and found that Mr. Chhavi Ranjan tried to influence Rajeev Kumar on behest of Amit Kumar Agarwal. 14. The accused persons while holding the post of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi had received complaints from the Defence against the sale of the abovesaid property by Jayant Karnad. Therefore, it was in the knowledge of the accused persons that the property was in possession of the Defenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cting boundary walls at the above site. Several police personnel were deployed for assisting these persons in taking possession and doing boundary wall. 16. Investigation has revealed that Mr. Chhavi Ranjan while working as the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi during 2020-21 to 2022 misused his official position and capacity of a public servant and extended undue benefits to several parties for corresponding gain to himself which he has been concealing. He has facilitated private persons for committing fraud. Mr. Chhavi Ranjan has also remained non-co-operative and have concealed facts regarding his involvement. 17. Investigation has revealed that bribe amounting to Rs. 1 crore was paid by the accused persons arrested earlier to the present accused through Prem Prakash for unblocking one plot of land at Bargain Mauja from the restricted list. Further, it is also revealed that a fixed amount of money ranging from 2-2.5 lacs was paid from Circle Offices to the accused person which was deposited to one of his close confidants. 71. It is, thus, evident that the petitioner while working as Deputy Commissioner has acted on the application of one Pradeep Bagchi, a fake o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lose and confident of accused Prem Prakash who was acting on the instruction of accused Amit Kumar Agarwal accused no. 3 and both these persons, namely, Prem Prakash and Amit Kumar Agarwal has met with the present petitioner and the Circle Officer, Mr. Manoj Kumar was also there, who had directed the Circle Officer to get the claim of Pradeep Bagchi verify from the office of Assurance of Records Kolkata. 75. It is thus evident from the aforesaid imputation that the present Deputy Commissioner was aware with all the facts regarding the fabrication of the document from its rightful owner in the name of Pradeep Bagchi and as such direction was given by him to the Circle Officer and based upon said forged document, the documents pertaining to the said land was prepared in the name of Pradeep Bagchi who has subsequently sold out the land in favour of one firm, M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd, the land situated at Cheshire Home, which was owned by Amit Kumar Agarwal, the accused no. 3. 76. The learned Special Judge based upon the aforesaid material available before him has remanded the present petitioner to Judicial custody. 77. The argument of learned counsel for the petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act, 2002 is that the authority is to reason to believe of commission of offence said to have been attracted under the PML Act, 2002 then such person is well to be arrested. 85. It has been submitted that herein the competent authority as per the PML Act, 2002 was having reason to believe based upon the conduct of the petitioner as per the imputation as stated under paragraphs 7 to 17 of the application filed to seek custody, as referred hereinabove and hence if on that belief the petitioner was arrested it cannot be said that there is violation of provision of Section 19(1) of the PML Act, 2002. 86. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument needs to refer herein the proposition, as has been laid down by Hon"ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) wherein the Section 19(1) has been interpreted with its implication. 87. Section 19 of the 2002 Act postulates the manner in which arrest of person involved in money-laundering can be effected. Subsection (1) of Section 19 envisages that the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Governmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 167 of the 1973 Code, but being an express statutory requirement under the 2002 Act in terms of Section 19(3), it has to be complied by the authorised officer. 323. In the context of this provision, the challenge is that in absence of any formal complaint being filed, arrest under Section 19 is being made by the authorised officers. Whereas, the purport of Section 167 of the 1973 Code would suggest that the person can be arrested by the jurisdictional police without warrant under Section 41 of the 1973 Code only upon registration of a complaint under Section 154 of the 1973 Code in connection with cognizable offence or pursuant to the order of the Court. Even, in case of arrest pursuant to the order of the Court, a formal complaint against such person accusing him of being involved in commission of an offence is essential. Moreover, the person produced before the Court would be at a loss to know the grounds for arrest unless a formal FIR or complaint is filed accusing him about his involvement in the commission of an offence. The provision if interpreted to permit the authorised officer to arrest someone being involved in the commission of offence of money-laund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....required to be recorded and supplied to the accused as per the provisions of 1973 Code. Revealing a copy of an ECIR, if made mandatory, may defeat the purpose sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act including frustrating the attachment of property (proceeds of crime). Non-supply of ECIR, which is essentially an internal document of ED, cannot be cited as violation of constitutional right. Concededly, the person arrested, in terms of Section 19 of the 2002 Act, is contemporaneously made aware about the grounds of his arrest. This is compliant with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It is not unknown that at times FIR does not reveal all aspects of the offence in question. In several cases, even the names of persons actually involved in the commission of offence are not mentioned in the FIR and described as unknown accused. Even, the particulars as unfolded are not fully recorded in the FIR. Despite that, the accused named in any ordinary offence is able to apply for anticipatory bail or regular bail, in which proceeding, the police papers are normally perused by the concerned Court. On the same analogy, the argument of prejudice pressed into service by the petitioners f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....since it is the admitted fact herein and as per the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner also it has been admitted that the allegation so far it relates to the transfer of land in the name of firm, M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd at at the time of arrest at least one imputation was there which led the competent authority to come to the conclusion of belief by making a reason to arrest and as such it cannot be said that there is no compliance of provision of Section 19(1) of the PML Act, 2002. 91. Accordingly, argument which has been advanced in this regard that the provision of Section 19(1) has not been followed is having no substance. 92. The third ground has been taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no legal evidence, and as such the very arrest is illegal. 93. While on the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI appearing for the respondent-ED has submitted that there is ample material available in course of inquiry based upon which the prosecution report was submitted and hence it cannot be said that there is no legal evidence. 94. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival submissions, needs to refer herein ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted as one dispute between Defence and JayantKarnad was also pending before his disposal i.e. In the court of the District Magistrate, Ranchi which he used to preside during his tenure. Yet on receipt of the application of Pradeep Bagchi, who falsely claimed himself to be the rightful owner of the property, the then Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Chhavi Ranjan assisted Prem Prakash, Amit Kumar Agarwal, Afsar All, Saddam Hussain and others verbally directed the Circle officer to visit the office of Registrar of Assurances (Records), Kolkata and verify the original deeds for ascertaining actual owner of the property. Investigation has revealed that the original registers in the records of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata were already forged/tampered with and falsified in favour of PradeepBagchi and the direction to visit Kolkata to verify the records available with Registrar of Assurances was a well-executed plan so that the property could be transferred to Amit Kumar Agarwal through his company JagatBandhuTeaEstates Pvt. Ltd. 8. Brief detail of persons examined u/s 50(2) & 3 of PMLA 8.1 Circle officer Manoj Kumar The Circle officer Manoj Kumar has stated in his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it some other office at Kolkata on government expenses for a private person and the same was done on the orders of the accused person Chhavi Ranjan, He further stated that he has provided two different verification report I.e., report by memo no. 443 (ii) dated 25.05.2021 and 847 (II) dated 25.09.2021 on the claim of Pradip Bagchi and forwarded it to the accused Chhavi Ranjan on his directions. During his statement dated 21.04.2023 (RUD No. 29), he stated that he personally doesn't know Afshar All but when he was called by the accused Chhavi Ranjan at his office, some other persons were also present there for the matter related to Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. He has further stated that a fixed amount of Rs. 2 lacs was sent to Mr. Chhavi Ranjan when he joined the Circle Office, Baragai. However, when he joined the office, the matter came into light of the superior authorities and this fixed collection ended. During his statement dated 04.05.2023 recorded under section (RUD No. 30), he stated that on 24.05.2021 he was called by the accused Chhavi Ranjan at his office and was verbally directed to visit Kolkata and give report as his earlier report dated 25.05.2021 was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Hussain meanwhile prepared a fake deed from the office of the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata in the name of Prafulla Bagchi, Father of Pradip Bagchi. It was projected that his father Prafulla Bagchi had purchased this land from one Pramod Nath Dasgupta and he had given the land for occupation orally to the Army and as on day Pradeep Bagchi is the rightful claimant of the property. These persons contacted one Prem Prakash for disposal of this land (Accused in an illegal stone mining case and is presently languishing in Judicial Custody). Prem Prakash is a power broker and an influence peddler who has access to highly placed government officials and political persons in Jharkhand. Prem Prakash is also very close to Mr. Chhavi Ranjan, the Ex-D.C Ranchi and the beneficial owner of the defence land i.e. Amit Kumar Agarwal (who is also a very influential person in Jharkhand). Mr. Chhavi Ranjan had knowledge that the above said property is disputed as one dispute between Defence and JayantKarnad was also pending for disposal before his court i.e., the court of the District Magistrate, Ranchi and the accused Chhavi Ranjan was also conducting the hearing in this matter. Yet on receipt o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fact that they acquired property worth several crores of rupees by paying only Rs 25 lakhs (which was in fact a commission). Instead, Amit Kumar Agarwal, the beneficial owner of company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. knowingly acquired the abovesaid property in name of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Chhavi Ranjan, then DC of Ranchi assisted these persons to acquire the above property by misusing his official position and overlooking the records available with his office. The Circle inspector Birendra Kumar Sahu and the Revenue Sub-Inspector Jayant Vijay Toppo visited the office of the registrar of assurances on 19.09.2021 (RUD No 33). The above two persons arranged a broker through which they applied for the certified copy of the deed no. 4369 of 1932 and returned back. The broker sent them the certified copy of the fake deed through skyking courier on 22.09.2021. The courier number is 403358804 and was addressed to the Circle Office, Baragal, Ranchi. 9.8.3 On receipt of the said deed, report dated 22.09.2021 favourable to the accused persons was prepared by the Circle Officer Manoj Kumar and he was also directed by Chhavi Ranjan to mention that as per the tran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... theiractivities connected with acquisition, possession, concealment as well as use of proceeds of crime and projecting and claiming them as untainted property. The accused person was actually a party with the accused No 3, Amit Kumar Agarwal in acquiring proceeds of crime worth Rs 20,75,84,200 (government value) in form of landed property, measuring 4.55 acres (455 decimals) at MS Plot no. 557, MaujaMorabadi whose present commercial value is around Rs. 41,51,68,390/-. The accused person was also party with Afshar All and Prem Prakash in unblocking a piece of land measuring 1.28 acres in plot no. 891 & 893, Khata no. 256, Bagarai, Ranchi for which the accused paid an amount of Rs. 1 crore in cash. The accused person also forcibly acquired fixed amount of Rs. 2 lacs per month from Circle Offices under him. Thus, the accused person has committed the offence of money laundering under section 3 of PMLA, 2002 and is liable to be punished under section 4 of PMLA, 2002 Property having Commercial value Rs. 41,51,68,390/- asper the minimum effective value per decimal fixed by District Registrar, Ranchi, effective from 01.08.2021. In addition to the above, acquisition of proceeds of crime....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in his office/subordinate offices. Chhavi Ranjan had knowledge that the above said property is disputed as one dispute between Defence and was also pending before his for disposal i.e. in the court of District Magistrate, Ranchi which he used to preside during his tenure. 99. On perusal of record, prima facie it appears that the petitioner knowingly assisted the M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., Amit Kumar Agarwal, Afsar Ali, Mohammad Saddam Hussain and other accused persons in their activities connected with acquisition, possession, concealment as well as use of proceeds of crime and projecting and claiming them as untainted property. The accused person was actually a party with the Amit Kumar Agarwal in acquiring proceeds of crime wroth Rs. 20,75,84,200/- (government value) in form of landed property, measuring 4.55 acres (455 decimals) at MS Plot no. 557, MauzaMorabadi whose present commercial value is around Rs. 41,51,68,390/-. 100. This Court, in view of aforesaid imputation, is of the view that the argument which has been advanced that there is no legal evidence against the petitioner is not acceptable, hence, rejected. 101. Fourth argument has been advanced th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property 3 [or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] 4 [or abroad]; 5 [Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include 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;] 2(v) "property" means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located; 1 [Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the term "property" includes property of any kind used in the commission of an offence under this Act or any of the scheduled offences; 108. The term "proceeds of crime" has been defined by Hon"ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) as under paragraphs, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeds of crime to be untainted property presupposes that the person is in possession of or is using the same (proceeds of crime), also an independent activity constituting offence of money-laundering. In other words, it is not open to read the different activities conjunctively because of the word "and". If that interpretation is accepted, the effectiveness of Section 3 of the 2002 Act can be easily frustrated by the simple device of one person possessing proceeds of crime and his accomplice would indulge in projecting or claiming it to be untainted property so that neither is covered under Section 3 of the 2002 Act. 269. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money-laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form - be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so. Thus, involvement in any one of such process ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....their favour in a meager amount in comparison to that of government notification, as per the detail furnished hereinabove. 119. As would be evident from the material collected in course of enquiry the connivance of the petitioner with the Pradip Bagchi accused no. 5, Amit Agarwal, accused no. 3, Afsar Ali, accused no. 6. and other accused persons cannot be lightly brushed out. 120. It would be evident from the various paragraph of prosecution complaint as mentioned above that the petitioner although is a government functionary heading the district in the capacity of Deputy Commissioner but even then he instead of protecting the State interest has connived with these persons to facilitate in illegal transfer of land based upon the forged document which he was already knowing and that is the reason he had directed the Circle Officer, namely Manoj Kumar to have an enquiry from the office of Registrar Assurance, Kolkata. 121. Therefore, the ground which has been taken that even accepting that there is legal evidence then also it cannot be said to be proceeds of crime, as per the definition of proceeds of crime, has no substance. 122. The learned counsel for the respondent-E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....directed the Sub-Registrar to register the land, which as per evidence was once denied to be registered, is also best known to the petitioner, however, it is to be looked into at the time of trial. 127. It has also come that the land which has been transferred was alleged to be owned by Defense Estate Danapur claiming the said land was owned by defence while later on the claim of ownership of the land was made by accused Pradeep Bagchi, but very surprisingly the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has not conducted enquiry regarding the grievance of Defense Estate Danapur rather directed the Circle Officer, Bargai to conduct enquiry on the grievances of co-accused persons, while said Pradeep Bagchi has made claim subsequent to the claim of the Defence Estate Officer, Danapur. 128. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed much reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Regina Vs. GH [(2015) UKSC 24] taking the ground that all the crime cannot be said to come under the fold of "proceeds of crime". 129. This Court has gone through the said judgment along with the factual aspects involved herein. There is no dispute about the law laid down therein that that all the cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued to show that the possession of the said land is in the name of Pradeep Bagchi and based upon which title of the said land was established with the help of present petitioner by relying upon the report which is based upon a forged deed planted in the Registrar Kolkata Assurance Office and petitioner used his official position to give legal colour to the transaction when he himself was aware that the title to the said land is in dispute and possession belongs to Defence and from the various paragraph of prosecution complaint it is evident that in the said act proceeds of crime is generated wherein forged deed is relied upon and transaction was entered into a miniscule rate wherein no actual amount of payment was done. 136. From record it also appears that the petitioner has involvement in facilitating brokers and private entities to acquire the properties which had been in possession of the Defence before independence. The deliberate act of the petitioner is not only restricted in extending benefits to the private entities but it also amounts to cheating and forgery and the petitioner who had a responsibility of ensuring fairness and securing government properties himself mis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision." 142. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail and by only simple saying that another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon"ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230, wherein, it has been held as under: "25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 :] , this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law." 143. The detailed imputation has been discussed herein above, so far the present petitioner is concerned but in order to come to the conclusion as to whether the case of the petitioner is at par with the said Dilip Kumar Ghosh, it requires to refer herein that the said Dilip Kumar Ghosh is not the public functionary and not on the post of public responsibility, which the present petitioner is holding who is having more accountability being the custodian of the public money and public land. In addition to that the allegation against the said Dilip Kumar Ghosh is that he was working under the dictate of Amit Agarwal, who is the beneficiary owner of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., therefore, the fact of the case of the petitioner is different to that of the fact of the said Dilip Kumar Ghosh. 144. Therefore, as per the principle laid down by Hon"ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar Versus Assistant Director Directorate of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal interest." 24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies ....