TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 612
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice Station Case no. 135 of 2022 by the jurisdictional police investigating the predicate offence and was released on bail on the same date by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the charge sheet did not disclose the name of the victim. The petitioner is also an accused in Biddhannagar Cyber Crime Police Station Case no. 77 of 2022 dated 11th May, 2022 under sections 419/420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 20/20A of the Indian Telegraph Act. He was shown as arrested in the said case after being released on bail in Case no. 135/2022 and has been granted statutory bail on 23rd November, 2023 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biddhannagar. When the petitioner was in custody in connection with Case no. 77 of 2022, he was shown as arrested in connection with M.L. Case no. 13 of 2023 for offence under section 3 read with section 4 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the PMLA) in connection with Case no. 77 of 2022. He was also shown as arrested in connection with M.L. case no. 17 of 2023 (the instant proceedings) in connection with Case no. 135 of 2022 on 7th January, 2024 and is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar in connection with the predicate offence on the ground of absence of victims in the charge sheet. It is also important to note that none of the persons whose statement was recorded under section 50 of the PMLA in course of investigation has been named as witness and the case is expected to proceed only on the anvil of the statement of the officers of the E.D. who have been cited as witnesses. 7. The sixteen accused named in the predicate offence have not been named in the present proceeding except Rakesh Choudhury. 8. The premises was leased out to the petitioner's company by LGW and the petitioner in turn leased out the same to E-unite, company of Rakesh Choudhury who runs call centres therein. The lease between LGW and the petitioner is not in question and LGW is neither an accused, nor a witness in the proceeding. Apart from rent transactions between E-unite and Met Technologies, the petitioner has no association with E-unite and their business activities. The co-accused persons who are alleged to be the employees of E-unite have been granted bail. The petitioner stands on a better footing. He has been shown as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment Directorate reported in 2024 Supreme Court Cases OnLine Jhar 2042; 11) Vijay Agarwal v/s. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2023 Supreme Court Cases OnLine Del 3176 12) Chandra Prakash Khandelwal v/s. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2023 Supreme Court Cases OnLine Del 1094 13) Central Bureau of Investigation v/s. V.C. Shukla and Others reported in (1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 410 14) Manish Sisodia v/s. Enforcement Directorate reported in 2024 Supreme Court Cases OnLine SC 1920; 15) Jalaluddin Khan v/s. Union of India reported in 2024 Supreme Court Cases OnLine SC 1945 16) Md. Hanif Mondal and Another v/s. State of West Bengal reported in 2018 Supreme Court Cases OnLine Cal 14646 17) V. Senthil Balaji v/s. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 Supreme Court Cases OnLine SC 2626 18) Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr reported in 2024 Supreme Court Cases OnLine SC 1693 19) Rakesh Choudhury v/s. State of West Bengal reported in C.R.R 3321 of 2024 20) Prem Prakash v/s. Union of India through Director, Directorate of Enforcement reporte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a habitual offender. The transactions made by the petitioner are corroborated from the seized laptop of the petitioner as well as Aditya Gupta, an employee of the petitioner. 17. The petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption under section 24 of the PMLA or satisfy the twin conditions laid down under section 45 of the Act. It cannot be held at this stage that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence of money laundering. Though the petitioner is on bail in both the scheduled offences, that does not entitle him for bail in the present proceedings under the PMLA, given the stringent conditions for bail laid down in the Act. The petitioner's detention is crucial to prevent him from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. He is also at flight risk in view of his international connections and financial resources. In fact, he was outside the country during the initial period of investigation and was apprehended on his return to Kolkata via Nepal. The E.D. has prayed for rejection of bail. 18. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that investigation is over. The entire transaction between E-unite and Met is based on documents. Admittedly the pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndational facts:- i. that a criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence has been committed; ii. that the property in question has been derived or obtained directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of such criminal activity; and iii. that the person concerned is directly or indirectly involved in any process or activity connected with the said property which constitutes proceeds of crime. Therefore it is for the E.D. to establish these foundational facts after which the onus shall shift upon the petitioner to rebut the presumption under section 24. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Prem Prakash (supra) held that once these foundational facts are established by the prosecution the onus shifts on the person facing charge of offence of money laundering to rebut the legal presumption that the proceeds of crime are not involved in money laundering, by production of evidence which is within his personal knowledge. 25. The petitioner was shown as arrested in connection with the present proceeding on 7th January, 2024 while he was in custody in connection with the other cases. He was produced before the learned Special Court on 9th January, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his kind is, first, to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession, then of course it is not necessary to call the confession in aid. But cases may arise where the judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands even though, if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an event the judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence and thus fortify himself in believing what without the aid of the confession he would not be prepared to accept." 31. It is not in dispute that the premises in question was leased out to the petitioner by LGW and the petitioner, in turn, sub-leased the same in favour of E-unite. The premises is occupied by E-unite as a sub-lessee under the petitioner. Certain discrepancies in the deeds executed between the petitioner's company (Met) and E-unite have been pointed out on behalf of the E.D. Whether such discrepancies are a camouflage by the petitioner and Rakesh Choudhury for securing the proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in the proceeding is against Rakesh Choudhury who is alleged to have been operating fake call centres in the premises in question and to have transferred proceeds of crime to the account of the petitioner. The payment of Rs. 1.50 crores to the petitioner in cash has prima facie not been substantiated. The said cash transaction surfaced from a purported excel sheet available in the laptop of Aditya Gupta who is neither an accused, nor a witness in the present proceeding. A comprehensive investigation appears to have been done by the E.D. resulting in overlapping of statements, documents, etc., in both the PMLA cases. 36. The E.D. apprehends flight risk of the petitioner and tampering of evidence as well as influencing witnesses by him if enlarged on bail. The case depends on documentary evidence which is in custody of the E.D. There is no scope for the petitioner to tamper with the same. The witnesses cited are official witnesses who are employees of the department and it is expected that the petitioner is not in a position to influence them. The issue of the petitioner being at flight risk can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the petitioner while granting hi....