TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and {in CrMP No. 721/2024, 860/2024, 1098/2024 and 1186/2024}, Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kajal Chandra, Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner {CrMP No. 936/2024, 959/2024 and 1807/2024}, Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshul Aggarwal, Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Mr. Robin Arya Lall, {Cr.M.P. No. 964/2024}, Mr. Aman Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner {CrMP No. 1286/2024, 1287/2024, 1288/2024, 1444/2024} and Mr. Shobhit Koshta {CrMP No. 1467/2024} For the Respondent/UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General. For the Respondent/State of Chhattisgarh : Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent/Enforcement Directorate : Mr. Zoheb Hossain (through Video Conferencing) and Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande and learned Special Public Prosecutor C.A.V. JUDGMENT PER RAMESH SINHA, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. Since common and inter-related facts and issues are involved in this batch of petitions, they are being considered and decided by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners, in Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024 have prayed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioners." 4. The petitioner, in Cr.M.P. No. 936/2024 has prayed for the following reliefs: "1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Impugned FIR bearing No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the ACB, Chhattisgarh against the petitioner for offence punishable u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 7 & 12 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and if any proceeding initiated therefrom. 2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Letter dated 11.07.2023 sent by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent No. 4 (which forms a part of the Impugned FIR) in complete violation of the Order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and all consequential actions/proceedings emanating therefrom. 3. To kindly call for the entire records and details of the sanction given by the appropriate authority under Sec. 17A PC Act taken by the ACB, Raipur and the preliminary inquiry conducted by Anti- Corruption Bureau, Raipur in relation to the Impugned FIR bearing No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the ACB, Raipur, 4. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to the grant of sanction u/s 17A Prevention of Corruption Act granted by the appropriate authority or registration of the Impugned FIR . 4. That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to grant in favor of the Petitioner." 7. The petitioner, in Cr.M.P. No. 1098/2024 has prayed for the following reliefs: "1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the arrest of the Petitioner as illegal and in gross violation of Section 19 of PMLA and the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India in relation to ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 registered by the Respondent Agency and quash the arrest and direct that the Petitioner to be released: 2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the Order dated 21.04.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District and Sessions Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh granting 1 days of judicial custody remand of the Petitioner from 21.04.2024 till 22.04.2024 in relation to ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 registered by the Respondent Agency; 3. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rh against the petitioner for offence punishable u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 7 & 12 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Letter dated 11.07.2023 sent by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent No. 4 in complete violation of the Order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and all consequential actions/proceedings emanating therefrom. 3. To kindly call for the entire records of the preliminary inquiry conducted by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur in relation to the Impugned FIR bearing No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the ACB, Raipur. 4. That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioners." 11. The petitioner, in Cr.M.P. No. 1444/2024 has prayed for the following reliefs: "1. Quash the investigation and all proceedings emanating from and in relation to ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 registered by the Respondent ED; 2. Direct that the act of the registration of ECIR/RPZO/ 04/2024 is illegal and consequently quash ECIR/ RPZO/04/202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he effect and operation of all investigation and proceedings arising from ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 registered by the ED, 4. Protect the Petitioner from any coercive action in relation to investigation and proceedings arising from ECIR/RPZO/04/ 2024 registered by the ED; 5. Grant any other relief (s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to grant in favour of the Petitioner." 15. Based on the relief prayed for by the petitioners, these petitions can be segregated into two groups, firstly, relating to the FIR registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau (for short, the ACB), Raipur, being Crime No. 4/2024 dated 17.01.2024 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC), Section 7 and 12 of the Anti Corruption Act, 1988 Amended Act 2018, {which includes Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024, 860/2024, 936/2024, 959/2024, 964/2024, 1286/2024, 1288/2024}, and secondly, the Enforcement Case Information Report being No. ECIR/ RPZO/04/2024, registered by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate {for short, the ED} {which includes Cr.M.P. No. 1098/2024, 1186/2024, 1444/2024, 1467/2024, 1287/2024 and 1807/2024.}. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....short, the ITD) on several premises owned by the petitioners and their family. Subsequent to the said raids, the ITD raid was conducted by the Income Tax Department and case bearing No. CT Case No. 1183/2022 was filed before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Acts) Central District, THC, Delhi, under Section 276(C), 277, 278, 278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, the ITA) read with Section 120-B, 191, 199, 200 and 204 of the IPC for the Assessment Year 2020-2021 alleging an illegal liquor syndicate in the State of Chhattisgarh. 18. Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024 is taken as the lead case for the first batch of petitions. The facts projected by the petitioner-Anil Tuteja, is that for a brief period of 8 months, he was posted as the Managing Director of the State Civil Services Corporation/Nagrik Apoorti Nigam (for short, NAN), a State-owned Corporation. On 09.05.2015, despite the fact that he was not named in the NAN FIR, sanction to prosecute him was sought by the ACB. On 05.12.2018, the ACB filed a supplementary charge-sheet in the NAN FIR arraigning inter alia Anil Tuteja as an accused. The charge-sheet was filed a week before the 2018 State Assembly e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anded over summons dated 28.03.2023 and was escorted by the ED officers along with CRPF personnel to the ED Office, Raipur in their custody. During the entire period of search and questioning at ED Office, Anil Tuteja was kept in confinement and custody of the ED officers. He was questioned at the ED Office and released at 8:30 pm. On 06.04.2023, the learned ACMM returned the IT Complaint in Original for lack of territorial jurisdiction qua offences under Sections 276(C), 278, 278E of the IT Act read with Section 120-B, 199, 200 and 204 IPC and erroneously took cognizance under Sections 277 of the IT Act and 191 IPC against the petitioners. The ITD was directed to file separate complaints qua each accused against whom cognizance was taken. No cognizance of Section 120-B of the IPC was taken by the learned ACMM. 19. On 08.04.2023, the petitioners-Anil Tuteja and Yash Tuteja filed W.P. (Crl.) No. 153/2023 titled before the Supreme Court seeking inter alia quashing of the summons issued to the petitioners in relation to ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. Through subsequent applications, quashing of the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, the prosecution complaint in the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 and all proceedings emanat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tay the hands of the ED in all manners in WP (Crl.) No. 153/2023 in as much as there was no predicate offence that the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 was premised upon. Liberty was granted to respondent-ED, to approach the Supreme Court in the event a stay is obtained qua the order dated 06.04.2023 21. Though no steps/action had been taken or urgency shown by the ITD in Crl. MC No. 2757/2023 until the Order dated 18.07.2023 was passed by the Supreme Court, immediately after the order dated 18.07.2023, on 21.07.2023, the ED caused the ITD to act as its proxy and file an application bearing Crl. MA No. 19314/2023 before the Delhi High Court in Crl. MC No. 2757/2023 seeking a complete stay of the order dated 06.04.2023. The act of causing the ITD to file Crl. MA No. 19314/2023 was a clear act of contempt of the order dated 18.07.2023 on part of the respondent-ED. Thereafter, on 28.07.2023, in violation and contempt of the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Supreme Court in WP (Crl.) No. 153/2023, by misusing Section 66 of PMLA, the officers of the respondent-ED wrote another letter to the Uttar Pradesh Police, illegally seeking registration of an FIR inter alia against Anil Tuteja in relation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n find mention in the body of the WP(Cr). No. 371/2023 filed by the respondent-ED, since they were aware that their acts were in contempt of the orders of the Supreme Court. This was the third act of contempt on part of respondent-ED. On 14.08.2023, Anil Tuteja sent a letter to the respondent-ACB for providing certain documents as sought for by the respondent-ACB. 22. By order dated 21.08.2023, the Supreme Court continued the interim protection granted vide order dated 07.08.2023 in relation to the UP FIR in light of the own admission of respondent-ED that the information on the basis of which the letter dated 28.07.2023 was sent to the UP Police, was available with the respondent-ED prior to the order dated 18.07.2023 staying its hands in all manner. The petitioner-Yash Tuteja was summoned on 25.08.2023 by the respondent-ACB for appearance on 28.08.2023 which was duly complied by him. The petitioner-Anil Tuteja was again summoned on 14.11.2023 by the respondent-ACB to appear before it on 28.11.2023 which was also complied with by him. 23. On 30.11.2023, a final report of the Departmental Enquiry (for short, DE) conducted by the Commercial Tax (Excise Department), State of Ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ducted by the respondent-ACB and the DE neither of which found commission of any offence. 25. On 31.01.2024, the petitioners preferred an application bearing No. 26027/2024 in WP (Crl.) No. 153/2023 inter alia seeking protection in the impugned FIR. However, on 19.02.2024, the Supreme Court categorically notes in WP (Crl.) No. 153/2023 that the predicate offence for the registration of the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 was the IT complaint. On 22.02.2024, petitioner-Anil Tuteja sent a letter to the Chief Minister of the State of Chhattisgarh responding to allegations made by the Respondents-ED and ACB in relation to the alleged liquor scam. On 23.02.2024, the petitioner-Anil Tuteja addresses another letter to the DG, ACB, Raipur, inter alia reiterating the legal infirmities of the impugned FIR and highlighted the legal requirement of a valid sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act in order to initiate investigation against Anil Tuteja in relation to the impugned FIR. On 25.02.2024, while the WP (Crl.) No. 153/2023 along with the Application No. 26027/2024 (Application by which the petitioners had sought protection in the Chhattisgarh FIR) was pending before the Supreme Court, the responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given to an officer in-charge of a Police Station is required to be reduced in writing by him. There is no discretion left with the Police Officer, not to register the FIR if the information received discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Reliance is placed on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in 2014 (2)SCC 1, wherein a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has settled the law relating to registration of FIR. On going through the said judgment, it is clear the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. The Constitution Bench has also held that the Police Officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence disclosed. The Court has further held that if information given clearly mentions the commission of cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register a FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er for offences punishable under ITA. Similarly, the offences of money laundering can be investigated by the ED only and EOW has no jurisdiction to investigate the offence of money laundering. The EOW is investigating the matters pertaining to offences of IPC and PC Act. Therefore, even if the ECIR registered by the ED has been set-aside by the Supreme Court, this will not absolve the petitioners from the offences which they committed under the provisions of IPC and PC Act. In the various paragraphs of the writ petition, petitioners have made pleading regarding the illegal registration of ECIR and the proceeding pending before the Supreme Court and the various orders passed by the Supreme Court. The factual position now is that the Supreme Court has allowed WPCr. No. 153/2023 filed by the petitioners vide order dated 08.04.2024 and has quashed the ECIR. The said ECIR has been quashed on the ground that there is no predicate offence for registration of the ECIR. The complaint of the IT Department was bereft of any scheduled offence on the basis of which ED can registered the ECIR. On this limited premise, the ECIR has been quashed. During the pendency of WPCr. No. 153/2023, petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....attisgarh Police is second FIR and is not permissible under the law. The chart below regarding comparison of FIR registered by the State of Uttar Pradesh (Police Station, Kasna, Greater NOIDA) and State of Chhattisgarh (P.S. Economic Offences Wing / Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur) which is as under: S.No. Particulars of the FIR FIR registered by the State of Uttar Pradesh FIR registered by the State of Chhattisgarh I. Number 196/2023 04/2024 II. Date of registration 30.07.2023 17.01.2024 III. Acts 420, 468, 471, 473, 484, 120-B, Penal Code 420, 468, 471, 473, 484, 120-B, Penal Code and 7 & 12, Prevention of Corruption Act. IV Complainant Shri Hemant, Dy. Director Enforcement Directorate Shri Hemant, Dy. Director Enforcement Directorate V. No. of Accused 05 70 VI. Details/of Names Accused 1. Sh. Arunpati Tripathi ITS, Special Secretary Excise 1.Sh. Anil Tuteja,thenj oint Secretary, Commerce and Industry, Chhattisgarh 2. Sh. Niranjan Das, E, IAS, Excise Commissioner 2. Sh. Anwar Dhebar 3.Sh. Anil Tuteja, IAS 3.Sh. Arunpati Tripathi, Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whether an FIR is a 'second' FIR or not has been laid down in Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another {(2013) 6 SCC 384, paragraph 14 and 15} and further in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab {(2009) 1 SCC 441, at paragraph 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 57 and 58}, and Ram Lal Narang v. State {(1979) 2 SCC 322, paragraph 11}. 33. From the perusal of above chart, it is apparent that allegations and scope of investigation in both the FIR different from each other. ACB is conducting investigation regarding allegation of (a) charging of illegal commission, (b) sale of unaccounted illicit country liquor where in usage of hologram alongwith other method was a modus operandi, (c) payment of annual commission by distillers for operation of cartel, which are not within the scope of investigation of UP FIR. From the above submission, it is clear that the case of the ACB is different from the FIR registered at UP and there is no illegality in the same. 34. The further contention of the petitioners that before registration of FIR the same IO has conducted a preliminary enquiry and by suppressing the said fact, he has registered the impugned FIR, is incorrect. After receiving....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present FIR). The said report was never approved by the competent authority of the Government. Therefore, the said report has no legal value. The further contention of petitioner's that without seeking prior approval as mandated in Section 17A of the PC Act, the answering respondent are investigating the matter is factually incorrect. During the verification of complaint and after registration of FIR, EOW sought approval from the competent authority as mandated in Section 17A of the PC Act and only after receiving the approval from the competent authority, the ACB is conducting the investigation. 36. The investigation is at very initial stage and the entry made in the case diary and the communication made with the various Departments are confidential in nature and the accused person are not entitled to look into the entry made in the case diary/evidence collected during the investigation. The allegation of the petitioners that the impugned FIR is result of the malafide is not tenable. No. malafide is alleged against the ACB. All the allegation in the petition is against the ED. It is settled law that the malafide is required to be pleaded specifically and the person aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th regard to the power of police to investigate and power of Courts to interfere during investigation, Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of of Maharashtra and others {(2021)19 SCC 401} has given some guidelines at paragraph 13.1 to 13.5 which is of utmost importance. From the bare reading of the said preposition of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court, it is clear that police has the statutory duty under the Cr.P.C to investigate into cognizable offence and the Court would not stop an investigation when it is in the very initial/preliminary stage. The Court should not go into the merits of allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation; it would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based of hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. In the present case investigation has just started. The allegation in the FIR is very serious in nature. The alleged offence committed by the petitioners is an offence against the society and to maintain balance between right of accused vis-a-vis right of people of State, it is desirable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 50 of the PMLA were acquired from the IO of the last ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, Thandi Lal Meena, Assistant Director. Further, during the course of investigation, statements of Bhupendra Pal Singh Bhatia (Distiller), Uday Rao (associated with Chhattisgarh Distilleries Ltd.), Atul Kumar Singh (FL- 10A licensee), Sanjay Diwan (Cash handler for Anwar Dhebar), Yogesh Juneja (Representative of FL manufacturer), Anurag Dwivedi (Bottle supplier), N Srinivas Rao (Representative of FL manufacturer) and Amit Mittal (manpower supplier) were recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, 2002 and in their statements, they had reaffirmed their statements given in the ECIR bearing No. RPZO/11/2022. On the basis of all of the above documents and records, it gets established that a well-planned systematic conspiracy was executed by the syndicate to earn illegal commission in the sale and licensing of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh. The obligation to send information under section 66(2) disclosing commission of an offence to a law enforcement agency while inquiring into the offence of money laundering has been very well recognized in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) {paragraphs 282 and 290}. In li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were making the collections from Horticulture Department, Cement Industry, PWD and Excise Department and others. As per PC filed by ITD, a criminal syndicate comprising of high-level State Government officials, private persons and political executives of the State government was operating in the State of Chhattisgarh which was making illegal bribe collections by controlling the high-level management of important State Departments and State Public Sector Undertakings. As per PC filed by ITD, sale of liquor in Chhattisgarh was one of the major sources of illegal earning of the syndicate and Anil Tuteja along with Anwar Dhebar, Arunpati Tripathi, MD, CSMCL, and other associates of Anwar Dhebar namely Vikas Agarwal @ Subbu, Arvind Singh, Sanjay Diwan and Country Liquor Distillers, Excise Officials etc. were the main actors of this syndicate. The syndicate collected illegal money in the following different ways from the sale of liquor in Chhattisgarh which for record keeping was broadly classified by the syndicate itself into 3 parts: 1. PART-A: Illegal commission charged from the Liquor suppliers on the accounted sale of liquor in Chhattisgarh. II. PART-B: Sale of off-the-record unacc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade the Managing Director of the organization at the behest of Anwar Dhebar. It has further been revealed that as part of the conspiracy, Arunpati Tripathi was assigned with the task to maximize the bribe commission collected on liquor procured by M/s CSMCL, and to make necessary arrangement for sale of non-duty paid liquor in the CSMCL run shops. Arunpati Tripathi was supported by Anwar Dhebar, and Senior IAS Officers in this operation. In furtherance of his plans, Anwar Dhebar gave the task of cash collection to Vikas Agarwal @ Subbu and the logistics were set to be responsibility of Arvind Singh. Thus, the syndicate took the shape. 44. It was difficult to extract cash bribes for foreign liquor makers in respect of IMFL and FL. Also, there was strong demand for good quality foreign brands. Hence, in April 2020, the syndicate introduced a fourth type of mechanism to extort bribe from FL makers also by introducing the concept of FL-10A licenses. These licenses were again given to three chosen associates of Anwar Dhebar. These license holders were to act as the 'collectors' or intermediary and buy FL and then sell to Chhattisgarh Government Warehouses and generated commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise officers. He revealed Anil Tuteja's role as well as role of Anwar Dhebar. He also revealed share of proceeds of crime of all the involved. He revealed how he used to provide the monthly targets to Janardhan Singh Kaurav who used to manage daily operations involved in sale of Part-B liquor. He gave an account of why the concept of FL-10A license was invented. He also revealed the name and role of associate of Anwar Dhebar viz. Arvind Singh and Vikas Agrawal. 47. The investigation has further revealed that a complaint was made by the previous Hologram provider, M/s Montage Enterprises Pvt Ltd. to the then Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh. This complaint was scuttled and not properly dealt with due to the joint actions of Arunpati Tripathi, Niranjan Das, IAS, Anwar Dhebar and Anil Tuteja. This fact is corroborated from WhatsApp Chats and the admission made by Arunpati Tripathi in his statement recorded under Section 50 of PMLA in ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. Similarly, there were other complaints regarding hologram and WhatsApp chats reveal that Arunapti Tripathi had forwarded the draft replies to these complaints to Anil Tuteja and Anwar Dhebar. Investigation has revealed that Arunpat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with denomination of Rs. 10 and had sent a forwarded message to Yash Tuteja saying "Paid 10'. There are multiple such whatsapp chats between Yash Tuteja and Anwar Dhebar. Thus, it can be held that Yash Tuteja also used to receive funds from Anwar Dhebar, which he had acquired out of illegal commission extracted from liquor suppliers. The investigation conducted has established that Anwar Dhebar was collecting Anil Tuteja's share in Part-B liquor sales as well. Investigations have revealed that approximately Rs. 300 per case was the share of the duo (Anil Tuteja and Anwar Dhebar) out of the illegal sale proceeds of the unaccounted liquor. As per the Distillers they have supplied a total of 40.67 Lakh cases of Part-B liquor which implies that an amount of approx. Rs. 120 Crore was the illegal earning of Anil Tuteja and Anwar Dhebar out of the sale of unaccounted liquor. Further there are digital evidences as discussed above that reveal that Anil Tuteja had received commission/ bribe amount Rs.14.41 crore from Anwar Dhebar via Nitesh Purohit during 28.07.2019 to 20.12.2019. 48. In the statements dated 28.04.2023, 29.04.2023 and 01.05.2023 (Annexure-R-4) recorded under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ams, and offences under the PC Act. The PMLA. apart from empowering ED officers to investigate money laundering, also casts a duty on ED officers to disclose information about any new predicate crime discovered during its investigation. 50. It is submitted that as mandated by Sec 66(2) of PMLA, ED made the necessary disclosure vide letter dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-R-5) to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, explaining the entire modus operandi of the scam in the Excise department, including the role played by senior bureaucrats, namely, Shri Anil Tuteja, Retd IAS (retired recently) and Shri Arunpati Tripathi ITS, then Special Secretary Excise Department and Managing Director of M/s CSMCL. Acting upon the information, Chhattisgarh Police registered an FIR vide Crime No. 04/2024 at EOW/ACB (Annexure-R-6). Similarly, on account of role of duplicate hologram manufacturer based out of Noida a disclosure was made to UP Police as well on 28.07.2023. Acting upon the information, Up Police registered an FIR vide 196/2023 at Kasna, PS, UP (Annexure-R-7). The PAO dated 21.05.2023 attaching assets worth Rs. 124 Crore in the hands of accused persons was also forwarded along with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of: (ii) The complaint based on ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, as far as the second petitioner (Anwar Dhebar) in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 208/2023 is concerned, is hereby quashed. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, partly allowed; (iii) The complaint based on ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, as far as the petitioner (Arun Pati Tripathi) in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 216/2023 is concerned, is hereby quashed. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed; (iv) There will be no order as to costs; and (v) Pending applications, including those seeking impleadment, are disposed of accordingly." 52. It is pertinent to note here that the Supreme Court only quashed the Prosecution Complaint dated 04.07.2023 in respect of the Anwar Dhebar and Arunpati Tripathi. Further the Supreme Court did not quash the ECIR or any other proceedings emanating out of ECIR bearing No ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. The Supreme Court also did not bar the ED from recording a new ECIR in this matter on the basis of FIRs registered by EOW/ACB and UP Police. Accordingly, an ECIR bearing No. RPZO/04/2024 was recorded on the basis of FIR No 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by EOW/ACB, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, to investigate the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns findings of the investigation were shared with the law enforcement agencies i.e. UP Police and Chhattisgarh Police. The other law enforcement agencies are independent in their operations and the ED does not have any control either direct or indirect in their operations. Thus, the allegation of the applicants that all the agencies are acting as proxy to ED with mala fide intent defies logic as well. The petitioners are even labelling the actions of the ITD as sponsored by the ED. 55. The ED investigations have revealed that the petitioner-Anil tuteja was the chief architect of the liquor scam. He was working at the highest level of the syndicate and looked after the support required from State administration to keep the system functioning. Many evidences were gathered associating the petitioner with Anwar Dhebar, the main perpetrator of the illegal collection. There are digital evidences that reveal that the petitioner had received commission/ bribe amount Rs.14.41 crore from Anwar Dhebar. The petitioner has thus acquired proceeds of crime emanating out of the illegal collection being made in liquor through multiple avenues. He had knowingly and willingly involved himself in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Delhi Administration) {(1979) 2 SCC 322}, State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi {(2012) 9 SCC 685, paragraphs 3 and 12}. 59. Mr. Hossain, learned counsel for the respondent-ED would broadly submit that for recording of an ECIR it does not require any prior registration of FIR. The obligation to send information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA disclosing commission of an offence to a law enforcement agency while inquiring into the offence of money laundering has been very well recognized. Criminal law can be put into motion by any person. It is well settled that impropriety in obtaining the evidence will not affect its admissibility, if it is otherwise relevant and if an information discloses a cognizable offence, the FIR is mandatorily required to be registered. Further, the ECIR is merely an internal document which cannot be quashed and the offence of money laundering is an independent offence. 60. In support of its contention, the ED would rely on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Magraj Patodia v. R.K.Birla & Others {AIR 1971 SC 1295}, R.M.Malkani v. State of Maharashtra {(1973) 1 SCC 471}, Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection of Income Tax (Investigation) New Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 63. With respect to Cr.M.P. No. 1098/2024, the ED has filed its return which is similar to that of in Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024. It has been submitted that the allegation of the petitioner that his arrest was illegal and contrary to Section 19 of the PMLA inasmuch as there could be no satisfaction of the IO that the petitioner is guilty of offence under Section 3 of PMLA Act. In this regard, it is submitted that all the due procedure and safeguards were followed in the arrest of the petitioner as per the provisions laid down in PMLA. During investigation into the new ECIR bearing No. ECIR/RPZO/04/2024, all pertinent documents, including statements recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, were acquired from the Investigating Officer of the old ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, Thandi Lal Meena, Assistant Director. Further, the petitioner contended that no summons are issued in new ECIR, in this regard, it is submitted that during investigation in new ECIR, many persons have been summoned under Section 50 of PMLA and statements of distillers, FL-10A license holders and others are recorded and in their statements they have reaffirmed their statements given in the ECIR bearing No. RPZO/11/2022. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner contended that ACB FIR was already considered as schedule offence in ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. In this regard, it is submitted that ACB FIR vide 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 is never included as schedule offence in ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. ACB FIR is included as schedule offence in only ECIR/RPZO/04/2024. 65. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the underlying scheduled offence for the said ECIR itself is untenable in law and liable to be quashed. In this regard, it is submitted that ED shared the findings of the investigation in ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 under Section 66 (2) of PMLA with the EOW/ACB Chhattisgarh on 11.07.2023 i.e. prior to stay granted by the Supreme Court. Therefore the letter dated 11.07.2023 was issued in a complete legal manner and the same is not violation of the Supreme Court's order dated 18.07.2023. Further the fact of registration of new ECIR on the basis of EOW/ACB FIR was also intimated to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court did not bar the ED from recording of new ECIR. Accordingly ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 was recorded. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner are vehemently denied as the same are baseless. The petitioner contended that DE condu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia. Accordingly information under Section 66(2) of PMLA was shared with UP Police due to the fact that Hologram manufacturing plant is situated at Noida which comes under the jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh Police. All the proceedings investigation including arrest of the petitioner herein, in the instant ECIR have been conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions laid down in PMLA. After the arrest, the petitioner was duly produced before the PMLA Court Raipur. The learned PMLA Court vetted the procedures of arrest carried out under Section 19 of PMLA and subsequently remanded the petitioner to ED custody after perusal of materials placed before him. 67. In Cr.M.P. No. 1098/2024, justifying the legality of custody by the ED, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra {(2011) 10 SCC 445 paragraph 60}, Pranab Chatterjee v. State of Bihar {(1970) 3 SCC 926, paragraph 9}, Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi {2019) 5 SCC 266 paragraph 19}, Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate {(1974) 4 SCC 141}. It is further contended that there is a distinction between the terms detention and arrest and in this regard, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) SCC 222, paragraph 23}, State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kapatri {(1996) 1 SCC 542, paragraph 22}, Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P. {(2008) 8 SCC 781, paragraph 37}, Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P. {(2013) 10 SCC 591, paragraph 23 to 26}, Daxaben v. State of Gujarat {2022 SCC OnLine SC 936 paragraph 35} and Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P. {2022 SCC OnLine SC 484, paragraph 30}. 68. Counsel for the ED has prepared a chart showing the current status of the petitioners as to whether they are arrested by the ED or the ACB. The details are as under: Petitioner Cr.M.P. No. Whether accused named in ACB FIR Whether accused charge sheeted Whether complaint was filed Whether arrested by ACB Whether arrested by ED Date of Arrest Anil Tuteja 721/2024 Yes No Yes No Yes 21.04.2024 Anwar Dhebar 860/2024 Yes Yes No Yes No NA Arunpati Tripathi 936/2024 Yes Yes No Yes No NA Niranjan Das 959/2024 Yes No No No No NA Anil Tuteja 1098/2024 Yes No No Yes Yes 21.04.2024 Anwar Dhebar 1186/2024 Yes Yes No Yes No NA Nitesh Puroh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y modified in connivance with senior officials of the State of Chhattisgarh namely Arunpati Tripathi (ITS), Niranjan Das (IAS) and Anil Tuteja (IAS) to favour M/s. Prizm Holography. It has further been alleged that this Company had supplied unaccounted duplicate holograms which were used for the illicit sale of illegal country liquor bottles from State-run shops in Chhattisgarh. Such act allowed the liquor syndicate to exploit the safety feature meant to authenticate liquor sales leading to fraudulent activities and financial losses to the State. Cr.M.P. No. 1286/2024 is filed by the petitioner-Nitesh Purohit. He is alleged to have been associated with Anwar Dhebar and further alleged to keep the proceeds of crime of Dhebar, at his Hotel Giriraj. Moreover, it is alleged that on the directions of Anwar Dhebar, he used to supply the aforesaid proceeds of crime to Anil Tuteja and other political persons, as and when required through various means. In all these petitions, the common relief that has been prayed is quashing of the FIR bearing No. 4/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the ACB, Raipur. 70. So far as the other petitions of the second batch are concerned i.e. Cr.M.P. No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng facts are common. Mr. Agrawal would draw attention of the Court to the complaint filed before the learned ACMM (Special Acts), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi being CT Case 1183/2022, wherein Anil Tuteja is the accused No. 1 and Anwar Dhbear is the accused No. 2. He further draws attention to paragraph 18 of the said complaint wherein the allegation against Anil Tuteja is that he facilitated for government approvals and participated in working of liquor mafia and collection of bribes on sale of accounted and unaccounted liquor in the State. 73. According to Mr. Agrawal, the Court at Delhi passed an order on 06.04.2023, where the Court has taken cognizance of the offence only under the IT Act. The learned Magistrate refused to take cognizance of the offences which were beyond his territorial jurisdiction but despite this order and despite the fact that this particular prosecution of IT Act had nothing other than 120-B IPC of criminal conspiracy as scheduled offence, the ED started and continued investigation in the first ECIR which is ECIR/RPZO/ 11/2022. This was registered on 18.11.2022. Various search actions were done under the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 and petitioners were called for int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 153/2023 filed by Yash Tuteja and Anil Tuteja and WP(Cr) No. 208/2023 filed by Mr. Anwar Dhebar. In the aforesaid cases, the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the ED was also represented before the Supreme Court as the State of Chhattisgarh had filed an application for impleadment. The order dated 18.07.2023 reads as under: "On hearing learned counsel for the parties it transpires that the complaints having been returned, the income tax authorities having taken that to a further court in appeal and there being any absence of stay, apart from the order already passed of no coercive action, the concerned respondent authorities must stay their hands in all manner. Ordered accordingly. On our query of learned ASG, we clarify that if the stay is obtained qua that order, it is open to the resondents to move this Court for obtaining appropriate order. Adjourned." 76. According to Mr. Agrawal, the Supreme Court was conscious of the fact that the petitioner was dealing with a prosecution without jurisdiction and directed the prosecuting agency including the ED to stay their hands off. According to Mr. Agrawal, the ED did two things; one, before the aforesaid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Thus, interim order dated 07.08.2023 to continue. List for directions on 26.09.2023." 78. According to Mr. Agrawal, in the first line of the aforesaid order, instead of 'petitioners' it should have been respondent/ED. He further submits that State of Chhattisgarh was aware of all what the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said as it was represented on all three dates. On 17.01.2024, when the dispensation changed, that letter of 11.07.2023 despite the three orders of the Supreme Court, the State of Chhattisgarh registered an FIR against the petitioners even though there was no material on record to register the FIR. The FIR was registered on 17.01.2024 (Annexure P/1). He draws attention to column No. 6 of the FIR with regard to the complainant who is Mr. Hemant, Deputy Director, ED, Raipur through Mr. Farhan Kureshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Economnic Offence Investigation Bureau, Raipur. The entire confidential report of the ED dated 11.07.2023 has been reproduced in the FIR No. 4/2024 wherein 70 named and other unnamed persons have been made accused. In the said report, it has been stated that ED had been conducting money laundering investigation in file No. EC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the law as it stands. The order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP(Cr) No. 141/2024, reads as under: "Heard the learned senior counsel appearing of the petitioner. The remedy of the petitioner is to file appropriate proceedings before the concerned High Courts. By granting liberty to the petitioner to do so, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of." 81. According to Mr. Agrawal the FIR of the State of Chhattisgarh by itself is the product of an information given by the ED under Section 66 from ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 which is without jurisdiction. It is also in the teeth of order dated 18.07.2023. Hence, if the registration of the FIR is illegal, can an investigation continue? The order of the Supreme Court dated 18.07.2023 was in operation on 17.01.2024 and hence, the said FIR could not have been registered. Since the PAO has been quashed and the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 prosecution complaint was also quashed, registering FIR No. 4/2024 on the basis of the same is illegal. Whenever the Courts have come to the rescue of the petitioners, the respondent agencies have by-passed that position and opened a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t are likely to be initiated at this stage. Therefore, all the contentions in that regard are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. 11. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 153/2023 and 208/2023 seeks continuation of the interim order dated 7th August 2023 passed by this Court in these two Writ Petitions to enable the petitioners to take recourse to appropraite proceedings before the appropriate Court. 12. By keeping the rights and contentions of the parties open, we direct that the interim order dated 7th August 2023 passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 153/2023 and 208/2023 shall continue to operate for three weeks from today." 82. According to Mr. Agrawal, it is in these three weeks that the petitioners approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for quashing of the FIR registered by the State of Chhattisgarh as well as Uttar Pradesh. However, the Supreme Court observed that the remedy of the petitioner was to file appropriate proceedings before the concerned High Courts. By granting liberty to the petitioner to do so, the writ petition was disposed of. After the afor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eting Corporation Ltd., Mr. Vikas Aggarwal alias Subbu, Mr. Sanjay Diwan and others for collecting commissions and supplying unaccounted liquor to government liquor shops, resulting in an approximate loss of Rs 2161 crore to the government. xxx xxx xxx 3. That, a Prosecution Complaint was also lodged by the Income Tax (IT) Department, echoing the allegations outlined in the FIR registered by ACB/EOW, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Based upon this Prosecution Complaint, an ECIR bearing No. RPZO/11/2022 dated 18.11.2022 was recorde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s necessary to - i. To prevent the destruction of evidence. ii. To confront you with various persons who are involved in these activities. iii. To trace out proceeds of crime acquired by you. iv. To prevent you from influencing the witnesses. v. To identify other persons involved in the syndicate." 85. There is complete non-application of mind by the officer arresting the petitioner-Anil Tuteja as the entire exercise has been done on the basis of materials available in quashed complaint of ECIR/ RPZO/ 11/2022. On 20.04.2024, when Anil Tuteja was arrested, he was under the protective orders by this Court in the ACB case. The ACB called him to join investigation. The petitioner was duty bound to go to that agency and submit himself. On 20.04.2024 he was in the ACB office. The ED officers came to the ACB Office and handed over a summons at 3:45 p.m. to join investigation at 12:30 p.m. which had already passed. When the petitioner asked that the time has already lapsed, a fresh summons was issued then and there for coming at 5:30 p.m. and they forcibly took him to the office of ED in their vehicle, interrogated him whole night and at 3:45....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... remand orders had been passed will not regularise that initial action. 89. With reference to the quashing of the entire PMLA investigation, two things are said. Whether from the first document to the last, every single accusation is with relation to liquor mafia. The Supreme Court says that there cannot be multiple investigations for single offence. In support of his contentions, Mr. Agrawal relies on the decisions of T.T. Anthony (supra) and Amit Bhai Anil Chandra Shah (supra). 90. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner-Vidhu Gupta {in Cr.M.P. No. 964/2024} wherein also, the FIR No. 4/2024 registered by the ACB is under challenge. He would submit that in view of the statement made on 25.04.2024 before this Court by Mr. Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State/ACB, the petitioner-Vidhu Gupta has not been arrested. Mr. Sinha adopts all the submission made by Mr. Agrawal adding that the FIR bearing Crime No. 196/2023 registered by the Police Station, Kasna, District Greater Noida, is dated 30.07.2023 wherein the offences are registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 473, 484 and 120-B of the IPC against the accused namely Aru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment, and MD, CG State Marketing Corporation Ltd. Mr. Vikas Agrawal alias Subbu, Mr. Sanjay Diwan and other for collecting commission and supplying unaccounted liquor to government liquor shops, resulting in approximate loss of Rs. 2161 crore to the government. 5. That, the FIR for the predicate offence as discussed above is registered by ACB/EOW, Raipur, Chhattisgarh u/s 120B, 420, 467 & 471 of IPC & Sections 7 & 12 of PC Act, which are schedule offence included in Paragraphs 1 & 8 of Part-A of the Schedule to PMLA, 2002 as defined under section 2(1) (y) of the Act Accordingly, enquiries were initiated under PMLA against the suspect persons after recording brief facts of scheduled offence and initiating money laundering investigation in file number ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 on 11.04.2024 by the officials of Enforcement Directorate, Raipur Zonal Office. 6. ED has analyzed the predicate offence FIR; Documents including the statements recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 shared by Mr Thandi Lal Meena, Assistant Director; Prosecution Complaint filed by IT and the data shared by the Income Tax Department. Further, during the investigation, statements of CL distillers & FL-10A licen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inflated the profit which was distributed as Part-A, Part-B and Part-C as detailed in the foregoing paragraphs. There cannot be two FIRs on the same offences. Mr. Shrivastava would further submit that petitioner-Niranjan Das {Cr.M.P. No. 959/2024} was Secretary Excise. He was not the accused in the complaint made by the ITD. The FIR which has been registered on the basis of letter the petitioner has not been named. The allegation is against Anil Tuteja, Arunpati Tripathi and Anwar Dhebar. There is nothing to show that there is any allegation against the Departmental officers or this person. There is even no allegation in the FIR registered by the ACB. The information which was received in the month of July, 2023 and on 17.1.2024 the FIR has been registered. In this case, the State has filed an application to adopt the reply filed in Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024. Their reply is merely that they have registered it on the basis of information given by the ED. There is nothing in the reply of the State against this petitioner that on their investigation they found something. Their entirely reply is with respect to Anil Tuteja and there is nothing on record to say that in the seven months from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e being an officer of the State was bound to comply with the directions of the State for implementation of any of the State's policy. 95. Mr. Aman Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners-Nitesh Purohit and Yash Purohit also adopts the submissions made by Mr. Agrawal as well as Mr. Shrivastava and Mr. Sinha. In addition, he would submit that Nitesh Purohit was named in the prosecution complaint ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 which was subsequently quashed. As the UP FIR exists and the present is the second FIR, and further, in order to pressurize, in the second ACB FIR, Yash Purohit has been named. In the ECIR, Yash Purohit was not named at all. He has been named in the second FIR by the ACB. Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Arvind Singh also adopts the submission made by learned counsel for the other petitioners and submits that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner. 96. In response, Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh, alongwith Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that allegation of the petitioners against the State of Chhattisgarh is limited to the ext....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry on the same allegations conducted by the jurisdictional Department i.e. Commercial Tax (Excise) Department, State of Chhattisgarh, did not find any illegality in relation to the same transactions. IV. No incriminating material against the petitioner has been found by the ED despite conducting investigating for over 2 years. VII. The act of registration of the impugned FIR is rife with malafide and the respondent No. 3 and 4 are acting as proxies of the respondent No. 2. VIII. The respondent No. 2 has committed repeated acts of contempt of the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court and all acts committed in pursuance thereto are a nullity in law. IX. The letter dated 11.07.2023 and 28.07.2023 sent by the respondent No. 2 are illegal and without jurisdiction and therefore the purported exercise of power u/s. 66 PMLA, which has led to the registration of the impugned FIR is bad in law." 97. The prayers in the said writ petition reads as under: "A. Quash the FIR bearing No. 196/2023 dated 30.07.2023 registered by the Respondent No. 4 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom; B. Quash the FIR bearing N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (y) of sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the PMLA. This Court, in the decision in the case of Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement {2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586}, recorded its conclusions in paragraph 31, which reads thus: "CONCLUSIONS 31. While we reject the first and second submissions canvassed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the third submission must be upheld. Our conclusions are: a. It is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged, must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence; b. Even if an accused shown in the complaint under the PMLA is not an accused in the scheduled offence, he will benefit from the acquittal of all the accused in the scheduled offence or discharge of all the accused in the scheduled offence. Similarly, he will get the benefit of the order of quashing the proceedings of the scheduled offence; c. The first property cannot be said to have any connection with the proceeds of the crime as the acts constituting scheduled offence were committed after the property was acquired; d. The issue of whether the appellant has used ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions of the Cr.PC (including the provisions as to bails or bonds) shall apply to proceedings before a Special Court and for the purposes of the Cr.PC provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Sessions. However, sub-section (1) of Section 46 starts with the words "save as otherwise provided in this Act." Considering the provisions of Section 46(1) of the PMLA, save as otherwise provided in the PMLA, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr. PC) shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court. Therefore, once a complaint is filed before the Special Court, the provisions of Sections 200 to 204 of the Cr.PC will apply to the Complaint. There is no provision in the PMLA which overrides the provisions of Sections 200 to Sections 204 of Cr.PC. Hence, the Special Court will have to apply its mind to the question of whether a prima facie case of a commission of an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is made out in a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA. If the Special Court is of the view that no prima facie case of an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is made out, it must exercise the power under Section 203 of the Cr.P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Crl.) Nos.153/2023 and 208/2023 seeks continuation of the interim order dated 7th August 2023 passed by this Court in these two Writ Petitions to enable the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court. 12. By keeping the rights and contention of the parties open, we direct that the interim order dated 7th August 2023 passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos.153/2023 and 208/2023 shall continue to operate for three weeks from today." 101. If there was an act of flouting the Supreme Court's order, the Supreme Court would have taken appropriate action against the State of Chhattisgarh. 102. One more aspect of the matter which is required to be considered is in respect of Section 66 of PMLA. Much objection has been taken to the fact that the information came to the State on 11.07.2023, the ED has acted in exercise of its powers under Section 66(2) of PMLA which has nothing to do with the investigation. It is a mandatory duty cast on the ED. If the Supreme Court had stayed the hands of all the concerned authorities in the light of the ITD complaint which the trial Court had returned on the ground that it had no jurisdiction, and noth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate of Chhattisgarh are not identical. There is no dispute that if two FIRs are identical, then the second one has to go or it shall merge with the first one. 104. According to Mr. Jethmalani, the canvas of the Chhattisgarh conspiracy is much larger than the conspiracy in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In Noida, the bogus holograms were manufactured which authenticated a bottle for sale of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh. The State has been deprived of the excise duty in the liquor sold in fake bottles inasmuch as the holograms were forged. Consequences were mainly in Chhattisgarh. Page 61 of the Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024, which is a letter dated 11.07.2023 where the information was given under Section 66(2) of the PMLA. The scope is set out at paragraph 2 which deals with classification of theillegal gratification in three parts i.e. Part-A, Part-B and Part-C, as detailed in the foregoing paragraphs. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, only the were manufactured. The offence committed in the State of Chhattisgarh is a wider conspiracy with different facets. There are two separate crimes in two different State and hence, the petitioners can be arrested twice. There was no preliminary enq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2357;िरूद्ध पद के दुरूपयोग एवं आसमानुपातिक संपत्ति अर्जित करने का आरोप की है। पद् का दुरूपयोग एवं असमानुपातिक संपत्ति के अरोपों का गोपनीय सत्यापन पृथक-पृथक किया जाना आवश्यक होने से पद का दुरूपयोग की जानकारì....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;िंद सिंह, श्री संजय दिवान, देशी शराब आसवनी मालिक तथा विभिन्न जिलों एवं मुख्यालाय में पदस्थ आबकारी अधिकारियों के साथ मिलकर राज्य में मदिरा की बिकी में अवैधानिक कमिशन की उगाही कर तथा बिना हिसाब के मदिरा की श....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thers (supra) that the earlier ECIR/RPZO/ 11/2022 was void ab initio, therefore every thing that followed from thereon has to be wiped out. If the foundation goes the superstructure falls. In response to the said proposition, Mr. Zoheb would submit that ECIR is an internal reference document as laid down in Vijay Madan Lal (supra). It is not akin to an FIR. It is not even a statutory document. Even without recording an ECIR, ED can initiate inquiry collect materials. It also says that without registration of a scheduled offence also i.e. without an FIR also an ECIR can survive inquires can take place. There are two aspects to PMLA proceeding, one is the civil and the other is criminal. Supreme Court says while examining Section 50's validity, that when the statements are recorded, materials are collected, it may be for the purpose of the civil action of attachment searches are made seizure are conducted by the way ED may also use it for criminal prosecution. Therefore, if a predicate offence like an FIR is not necessary for recording an ECIR, the argument that because there was no scheduled offence, ECIR has to go, is liable to be rejected. Because on what ground the complaint ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of search warrants, as I hold there was, still the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code have been completely disregarded. On this assumption he has contended that the evidence discovered by the searches is not admissible, but to this view I cannot accede. For without in any way countenancing disregard of the provisions prescribed by the Code, I hold that what would otherwise be relevant does not become irrelevant because it was discovered in the course of search in which those provisions were disregarded. As Jimutavahana with his shrewd common sense observes - a fact cannot be altered by 100 texts, and as his commentator quaintly remarks: "If a Brahmana be slain, the precept 'slay not a Brahmana' does not annul the murder". But the absence of the precautions designed by the Legislature lends support to the argument that the alleged discovery should be carefully scrutinized." 109. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the evidence collected even assuming it to an illegal search and seizure would be valid and admissible. That is the position prevailing in India as well as in English law. He relies on R.M.Malkani (supra), Magraj Patodia (supra) and Pooran Mal (supra). Rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....res pursuant to the summons issued by the Authority. At this stage, there would be no formal document indicative of likelihood of involvement of such person as an accused of offence of money- laundering. If the statement made by him reveals the offence of money-laundering or the existence of proceeds of crime, that becomes actionable under the Act itself. To put it differently, at the stage of recording of statement for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property being proceeds of crime is, in that sense, not an investigation for prosecution as such; and in any case, there would be no formal accusation against the noticee. Such summons can be issued even to witnesses in the inquiry so conducted by the authorised officials. However, 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was unwarranted. 5. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appeared in these matters on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate and his submission is that in the Writ Petitions, out of which the present proceedings arise, Enforcement Directorate was not a party. The Order of this Court, giving interim protection to the petitioner from coercive steps, was based in the backdrop of the direction of the Single Judge issued on CBI to investigate into the allegations of irregularities pertaining to the recruitment of primary teachers and observations of the Single Judge that CBI could interrogate the petitioner and also arrest him in case of his non cooperation. His case is that the Enforcement Directorate had initiated an independent investigation into money laundering allegations based on the aforesaid ECIR against one Chandan Mondal @ Ranjan and unknown office bearers of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education and others." xxxxxxxxx 7. We cannot hold the arrest of the petitioner by the Enforcement Directorate illegal as the issue of money-laundering or there being proceeds of crime had not surfaced before the Single Judge or the Division Bench of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., warranting their arrest within 24 hours. 115. In rebuttal, Mr. Zoheb would point out paragraph 55 of the decision in Baldev Singh (supra) which reads as under: "55. We, therefore, hold that an illicit article seized from the person of an accused, during search conducted in violation of the safeguards provided in Section 50 of the Act, cannot by itself be used as admissible evidence of proof of unlawful possession of the contraband on the accused. Any other material/article recovered during that search may, however, be relied upon by the prosecution in other/independent proceedings against an accused notwithstanding the recovery of the material during an illegal search and its admissibility would depend upon the relevancy of that material and the facts and circumstances of that case." 116. Mr. Zoheb would also draw attention of the Court to paragraph 290 of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) which reads as under: "290. As a matter of fact, prior to amendment of 2015, the first proviso acted as an impediment for taking such urgent measure even by the authorised officer, who is no less than the rank of Deputy Director. We must hasten to add that the nuanced dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssistant Director or any other officer shall, immediately after arrest of such person under sub-section (1), forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession, referred to in that sub-section, to the Adjudicating Authority, in a sealed envelope, in the manner, as may be prescribed and such Adjudicating Authority shall keep such order and material for such period, as may be prescribed. (3) Every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall, within twenty-four hours, be taken to a Special Court or Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction: Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Special Court or Magistrates Court." 118. Section 66 of the PMLA reads as under: "66. Disclosure of information.- (1) The Director or any other authority specified by him by a general or special order in this behalf may furnish or cause to be furnished to-(i) any officer, authority or body performing any functions under any law relating to imposition of any tax, duty or cess or to dealings in foreign exchange, or preven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agraphs 456 to 459 the Supreme Court had the following to observe: "ECIR VIS-À-VIS FIR 456. As per the procedure prescribed by the 1973 Code, the officer in-charge of a police station is under an obligation to record the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, in terms of Section 154 of the 1973 Code. There is no corresponding provision in the 2002 Act requiring registration of offence of money-laundering. As noticed earlier, the mechanism for proceeding against the property being proceeds of crime predicated in the 2002 Act is a sui generis procedure. No comparison can be drawn between the mechanism regarding prevention, investigation or trial in connection with the scheduled offence governed by the provisions of the 1973 Code. In the scheme of 2002 Act upon identification of existence of property being proceeds of crime, the Authority under this Act is expected to inquire into relevant aspects in relation to such property and take measures as may be necessary and specified in the 2002 Act including to attach the property for being dealt with as per the provisions of the 2002 Act. We have elaborately adverted to the procedure to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uding bail and attachment, confiscation and vesting of property being proceeds of crime. Indeed, after arrest, the manner of dealing with such offender involved in offence of money-laundering would then be governed by the provisions of the 1973 Code - as there are no inconsistent provisions in the 2002 Act in regard to production of the arrested person before the jurisdictional Magistrate within twenty-four hours and also filing of the complaint before the Special Court within the statutory period prescribed in the 1973 Code for filing of police report, if not released on bail before expiry thereof. 457. Suffice it to observe that being a special legislation providing for special mechanism regarding inquiry/ investigation of offence of money-laundering, analogy cannot be drawn from the provisions of 1973 Code, in regard to registration of offence of money-laundering and more so being a complaint procedure prescribed under the 2002 Act. Further, the authorities referred to in Section 48 of the 2002 Act alone are competent to file such complaint. It is a different matter that the materials/evidence collected by the same authorities for the purpose of civil action of attachme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrest that is sufficient compliance of mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Moreover, the arrested person before being produced before the Special Court within twenty-four hours or for that purposes of remand on each occasion, the Court is free to look into the relevant records made available by the Authority about the involvement of the arrested person in the offence of money-laundering. In any case, upon filing of the complaint before the statutory period provided in 1973 Code, after arrest, the person would get all relevant materials forming part of the complaint filed by the Authority under Section 44(1)(b) of the 2002 Act before the Special Court. 459. Viewed thus, supply of ECIR in every case to person concerned is not mandatory. From the submissions made across the Bar, it is noticed that in some cases ED has furnished copy of ECIR to the person before filing of the complaint. That does not mean that in every case same procedure must be followed. It is enough, if ED at the time of arrest, contemporaneously discloses the grounds of such arrest to such person. Suffice it to observe that ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR which is mandatorily required to be re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pradesh though was prior in time i.e. on 30.07.2023, however, the stretch of crime therein is not as vast as that has been registered in the State of Chhattisgarh. In the FIR registered by the Kasna Police Station, there are only five accused namely Arunpati Tripathi (ITS), Niranjan Das (IAS), Anil Tuteja (IAS), Anwar Dhebar who is a businessman at Raipur and Vidhu Gupta, who is the Managing Director of M/s. Prizm Holography Security Films Pvt. Ltd. The relevant part of the said FIR reads as under: "प्रवर्तन निदेशालय भारत सरकार क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय A.1 ब्लॉक, द्वितीय तय पुजारी चैम्बर्स, पचपेड़ी नाका, रायपुर, छत्तीसगé....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isgarh. I used to provide the contact details of transporter to Shri Arun Pati Tripathi and associates of Shri Arun Pati Tripathi collected these duplicate holograms in 5. In the allotment of tender to M/s PHFS, major role was played by the Mr Arunpati Tripathi Special Secretary Excise and Niranjan Das IAS, Secretary Excise Department. In his statement dated 19.04.2023 recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002, Mr Arunpati Tripathi has admitted that duplicate holograms were indeed supplied by M/s PHSF to the syndicate. Relevant portion of his statement is reproduced herein below Source of Hologram: The duplicate holograms were supplied by M/s Prizm Holography Films Securities Pvt. Ltd which was also supplying genuine hologram to Excise Department. These holograms were being supplied to distillers by Amit Singh, nephew of Arvind Singh and one of his associate Deepak. 6. M/s Prizm Holography Security Films Pvt Ltd was awarded the tender to supply holograms by the Excise fact a safety feature to ensure that authenticated liquor is sold in the State. But the actions of M/s Prizm Holography in manufacturing duplicate Holograms at Noida, allowed the Liquor Syndicate to use the very same safety featu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of competent authority Yours faithfully, sd sign. English (HEMANT) (DEPUTY DIRECTOR) उप निदेशक/ Deputy Director प्रवर्तन निदेशालय; Directorate of Enforcement रायपुर क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय; Raipur Zonal Office Encl: 1. ITD panchnama dated 03.02.2021 leading to seizure of duplicate hologram from premises belonging to M/s PHSF. 2. Statement dated 02.04.2023 and 03.04.2023 of Mr. liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh during this period and cause a massive loss of Rs 1200 Crore to the State Exchequer and illegal gain to the accused persons including M/s PHSF. It is further submitted that ED has filed its first prosecution complaint in the matter which is also enclosed. 7. That the investigation carried out by this Directorate is preceded by enquiries conducted by Income Tax Department. In one of the search operations in 2021 at the premises of M/s PHSF, duplicate holograms were also seized from Noida Factory premis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tripath and other unnamed senior officers of Excise Department and local District Level Excise Officers have also been mentioned. The said offence has different facets including multiple sections of the PC Act, IPC and PMLA. There are various whatsapp chats and calls in the form of electronic evidence which prima facie goes to suggest the involvement of the petitioners herein in the aforesaid organized crime. 125. The case laws referred in the foregoing paragraphs clearly establishes that if an information discloses a cognizable offence, the FIR is mandatory required to be registered. The offence of money laundering, which is one of the offence involved in the present cases, is an independent offence as has been held in Manik Bhattacharya (supra), Aditya Tripathi (supra), Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) and Pavana Dibbur. (supra). As it has been well recognized by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) that obligation to send information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA disclosing commission of an offence to a law enforcement agency while inquiring into the offence of money laundering, hence, the ED has not committed any illegality by sending the information to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these objectives upside down. They have systematically altered liquor policy as per their whims and fancies and extorted maximum personal benefit for themselves. The excise policy in the State of Chhattisgarh was amended in the year 2017 and CSMCL in February, 2017, was thus created with the responsibility to exclusively retail liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh through its stores. The CSMCL was established with the vision to provide genuine liquor, to stop sale of illegal Liquor, to provide liquor on MRP. It established its own stores to retail the liquor/ beer/wine/country liquor after procuring liquor from manufacturers directly. 129. With the advent of new policy in the State, CSMCL was incorporated, and it established its own stores to retail the liquor/beer/wine/country liquor after procuring country liquor directly from manufacturers and IMFL was procured from suppliers and stored in warehouses of another State Public Sector Undertaking, Chhattisgarh State Beverage Corporation Limited (for short, the CSBCL). The shops were supposed to be run by outsourced staff and cash collection was to be done by private vendors/Bank representatives. Liquor can be divided into two cat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... State run shops and the manpower company, Bottle makers, Cash collection agency, State Excise Officials. 131. As per the investigation conducted by the ED, deputing a compliant MD at CSMCL was the first step in institutionalizing PART-A bribe/ commission. As part of the conspiracy, MD CSMCL would only procure liquor from preferred manufacturers while side-lining the ones not paying commission. The collection of Part-A commission was thus assured. Arunpati Tripathi was found to be giving detailed month-wise, supplier-wise excel sheets of the procurement to Anwar Dhebar to ensure that PART-A commission was collected without fail from the Distillers & Suppliers. in order to decide the quantum of commission on sale of country liquor, a meeting was called by Anwar Dhebar in March, 2019 which was attended by Promoter/Director of the Country liquor manufacturers viz M/s Chhattisgarh Distilleries Limited, M/s Bhatia Wines Merchants Private Limited and M/s Welcome Distilleries Private Limited along with Arunpati Tripathi, wherein the distillers were demanded to pay commission of Rs. 75 per case of country Liquor against procurement by M/s CSMCL and in return Anwar Dhebar promised to rai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irectly or through Arvind Singh. Then senior Excise officials used to coordinate with Distillers, Hologram Makers, Bottle Makers, Transporters and local Excise Officials to ensure that the entire system ran flawlessly and no one interferes in this illegal State-run racket. The target of kachcha liquor sale was flexible and, on an average, around 200 trucks carrying 800 cases of country liquor per month were supplied by the distillers to the syndicate during the financial year 2019- 20. This number of Part-B trucks rose to around 400 trucks per month in 2022-23. Country Liquor Distillers also favoured this type of corruption, as it was yielding them better profit margin, saving them taxes, saving them PART- A commission, and saving them cost overheads of generating cash to pay PART-A bribes. Sale of unaccounted liquor was highly profitable for the syndicate. Whereas in case of PART-A sale of Country Liquor, they were getting commission of around Rs. 100 per Case, by selling the entire Case off the record, they were getting Rs. 3880 [minus Rs. 590 (of distiller) + Rs. 150 (of shopkeepers and lower excise staff)] around Rs. 3000 per Case. During the financial year 2019-20, the price o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f unaccounted kachcha illegal liquor (Part-B) also charged quid pro quo bribes from main distillers so that they can form a cartel and divide the entire market share among themselves. This was known as PART-C earnings. This was an annual commission which was paid by the main distillers for getting distillery license and getting fixed share in the market purchase of CSMCL. Kedia Group got 52% share, Bhatia Group got 30% and Welcome Group got 18% share. ED investigation has established that approximately Rs. 2161 Crores of corruption money has been generated by this syndicate. ED has recorded statements of numerous individuals and has managed to piece together the evidence of large-scale illegal collection and money laundering by this network. The ED investigation has established that in the Excise Department of State of Chhattisgarh massive unprecedented corruption was done between 2019 to 2023 in multiple ways. The total extent of extortion is coming to around Rs. 2161 Crore. The entire amount is nothing but the rightful amount which should have gone to the State Exchequer and should have been taxed and yielded revenue for Central and State governments. Thus, this is the proceeds o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., detention and arrest which has been discussed in detail by the Supreme Court in Sundeep Kumar Bafna (supra) at paragraphs 9 to 16. 139. From perusal of the materials available on record, we do not find that the arrest and the subsequent order of remand passed by the learned Magistrate or the Special Judge, is violative of any of the provisions of the PMLA Act or the Cr.P.C. 140. According to the petitioners, the ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 is a second ECIR in relation to the same alleged transaction and has been registered on the basis of the same underlying schedule offence for a second time and all proceedings and investigation in relation to the same are thus liable to be quashed. ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 was registered on the basis of prosecution complaint filed by the ITD before learned ACMM Court Tis Hazari New Delhi. However, the new ECIR bearing No ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 has been recorded on the basis of FIR bearing No. 04/2024 registered by ACB/EOW Raipur. In first ECIR, the scheduled offence was Section 120B IPC and in the second ECIR, the scheduled offence is 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC, 7 and 12 of PC Act, 1988. Therefore, schedule offence in both the ECIRs is different from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t cannot be said that the FIR recorded on the basis of Section 66(2) letter can be quashed at all. If information discloses a cognizable offence, the FIR is mandatorily required to be registered as has been laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra). 142. The contention of the petitioners that the DE on the same allegations conducted by the jurisdictional Department i.e. Commercial Tax (Excise) Department did not find any illegality, also deserve to be rejected as in the foregoing paragraphs, as discussed, the enquiry was done by the person who himself is an accused in this case. The Department which is under the scrutiny, where senior officer like Excise Secretary and Excise Minister were being summoned for their role in the scam, has conducted its own in house enquiry and claimed that there was no wrongdoing in the Excise Department. It has not been discussed as to the prosecution complaint filed by the ED which was already filed before the Special Court. The findings of investigation of the ED, evidences collected and facts presented were not paid heed to and everyone involved was given a clean chit. It is nothing but a sham report and does not have any bearing on the subject case. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....764, Normal Jeet Singh Hoon v. Irtiza Hussain, (2010) 14 SCC 564. Ratnagiri Gas and Power (P) Ltd v RDS Projects Lad.. (2013) 1 SCC 524), no allegation of mala fide cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a reasonable apprehension and therefore, this Court will refram from commenting further on the said issue The assertion that certain questions were put in a roving and fishing manner to the Petitioners cannot be a ground to allege malafides as it is settled law that investigation is the sole prerogative of the investigating agency as per a long line of judgments starting from King-Emperor Vs Khwaja Nazir Ahmad 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29. 38. Further, so far as the allegations of malafides are concerned, the same has no place in criminal investigations. Secondly, it is settled law that allegations of malafides are easy to be made than to actually make out The allegations of malafides need to be corroborated wah concise statements of material facts which inspire confidence. Thirdly, apart from non-applicability of such grounds in a criminal investigation, the PMLA and CrPC provides for enough and sufficient safeguard with checks and balances to obviate any such apprehension."....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counter claim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted. " 148. In Monika Bedi v. State of Andhra Pradesh {(2011) 1 SCC 284}, the Supreme Court, relying on the decision in State of Bombay v. S.L.Apte {AIR 1961 SC 578} has thus to say: "29. It is thus clear that the same facts may give rise to different prosecutions and punishment and in such an event, the protection afforded by Article 20(2) is not available. It is settled law that a person can be prosecuted and punished more than once even on substantially same facts provided the ingredients of both the offences are totally different and they did not form the same offence." 149. It has bee....