TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....28/RP/2023M And Ors. - -<br>PMLA<br>MP-PMLA-2571/RP/2023 (Exem.) FPA-PMLA-6280/RP/2023, MP-PMLA-12573/RP/2023 (Stay) MP-PMLA-12574/RP/2023 (Exem.) FPA-PMLA-281/RP/2023 MP-PMLA-12576/RP/2023 (Stay) MP-PMLA-12577/RP/2023 (Exem.) FPA-PMLA-6282/RP/2023, MP-PMLA-12596/RP/2023 (Stay) MP-PMLA-12597/RP/2023 (Exem.) FPA-PMLA-6290/RP/2023, MP-PMLA-12765/RP/2023 (Exem.) FPA-PMLA-6334/RP/2023, MP-PMLA-12767/RP/2023 (Exem.) FPA-PMLA-6335/RP/2023, MP-PMLA-12769/RP/2023 (Exem.) FPA-PMLA-6336/RP/2023, MP-PMLA-12771/RP/2023 (Exem.) FPA-PMLA-6337/RP/2023, MP-PMLA-12773/RP/2023 (Exem.) FPA-PMLA-6338/RP/2023, MP-PMLA-12775/RP/2023 (Exem.) FPA-PMLA-6339/RP/2023, MP-PMLA-12762/RP/2023 (Stay) MP-PMLA-12763/RP/2023 (Exem.) MP-PMLA-12764/RP/2023 (COD) FPA-PMLA-6315/RP/2023, MP-PMLA-12561/RP/2023 (Stay) MP-PMLA-12763/RP/2023 (Exem.) FPA-PMLA-6275/RP/2023, FPA-PMLA-6265/RP/2023, FPA-PMLA-6266/RP/2023 Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari : Chairman Shri Rajesh Malhotra : Member For the Appellants : Shri Anshu Rai, Mr. Ravilochan Daliparthy, Mr. Rajan Parmar, Advocates (for Sr. no. 1-3) & Mr. Dushyant S. Chauhan, Mr. Abhinav Parihar, Advocates (for Sr. no. 4) & Mr. Nikhil Varshney, Pr. Preksha Mehndriatta, Ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ton of coal transportation from mines with the active involvement of State Mining Officials/District Officials and Network Agents stationed in the coal belt. The syndicate operated in a well planned conspiracy, with delivery of orders only after illegal payment to the syndicate. Surya Kant Tiwari was assisted by the Government official like Smt. Saumya Chaurasia, Deputy Secretary, CMO (Chhattisgarh Administrative Officer), Sameer Vishnoi, Indian Administrative Services Officer and associates like Rajnikant Tiwari, Roshan Singh, Nikhil Chandrakar, Sheikh Moinudeen Qureshi, Hemant Jaiswal, Joginder Singh etc. 7. The collected money was to be distributed amongst the accused and even to settle the bribe money to the Government Officers and politicians to fund election expenditures. The investigation revealed that large portion of money has been channelized into layered transactions to project it as untainted money and brought into the main stream by investing in the properties, coal washeries and other assets. 8. In terms of the permission received from the learned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, section 384 IPC was added in the FIR but while filing the chargesheet ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.2023 after dropping the charges under section 384 and 120 B of IPC and accordingly, the Court of Additional Chief Justice Magistrate, Bengaluru took cognizance of the offence under section 204 and 253 of IPC only. The two offences, for which cognizance was taken are not predicate offences and thereby ECIR was recorded without a scheduled offence so as the further proceedings, which is not permissible. III. No nexus between the appellant and alleged proceeds of crime (i) In majority of the appeals, the arguments were raised that appellants were not named as the accused in the FIR registered by Karnataka State Police and even in the ECIR recorded by the Zonal Office of Enforcement Directorate, Raipur. The appellants had no role or link in generation or concealment of alleged proceeds of crime. They disclosed the source for acquisition of the properties which were purchased by banking channel and was otherwise on the circle rates. (ii) It is further submitted that the Apex Court granted bail to the appellants Sunil Kumar Agarwal and LaxmiKant Tiwari by making observation that no predicate offence is existing. Thus, proceeding under the Act of 2002 should vitiate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ari. They had no connection or involvement whatsoever in the offence of extortion of illegal money otherwise alleged against Surya Kant Tiwari and associates. 11. Sunil Kumar Agarwal and its Companies were victims of extortion by the syndicate of Suryakant Tiwari. They were compelled to pay illegal amount of Rs. 25/- per ton for transportation of coal in the state of Chhattisgarh. They had no relation with the accused whatsoever. 12. It was further submitted that in the Income Tax raid on Surya Kant Tiwari conducted on 30.06.2022, many documents were collected but that itself could not have been taken to be a bar for the appellant Companies and promoter Sunil Kumar Agarwal from entering into any transaction with the persons so raided. It is otherwise a fact that no allegation exists against the appellant Sunil Kumar Agarwal and its companies for receiving tainted money to use it for the acquisition of properties. The similar arguments have been raised by other appellants. Arguments of the respondent 13. The learned counsel for the respondent had vehemently contested the appeals and raised elaborate arguments on each issue. 14. It is submitted that after registration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Income Tax Department during the searches. In the hand written Note at page no. 1 and 3, it was mentioned that transit pass of DO needs to be issued by the Mining Officer manually and existing system of online approval needs to be done away. It was also mentioned on the very same page that the reason should be given for change from online to manual systems as "error in server". The Order dated 15.07.2020 enabled Shri Suryakant Tiwari to collect illegal levy of Rs. 25/ton from coal transportation by making the coal transporters dependent on the Mining Officials to give NOCs manually for timely pick up of the coal from mines. 17. For the collection of illegal levy, Shri Suryakant Tiwari deployed several associates in the districts from where coal is mined by SECL in the state of Chhattisgarh. The persons developed had liaison with Collectorate office and other agencies. Unless cash @ Rs. 25/ton for coal transportation is paid to associates of Suryakant Tiwari, the mining officer in the office of collectorate would not issue the requisite transit pass. That, once these associates of Shri Suryakant Tiwari receive the additional charge of Rs. 25/- per tonne of coal to be tran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Police through proper channel". Thus, offence u/s 384 of IPC has not been dropped. 22. The learned counsel for the respondent further addressed arguments on each common as well as separate issues raised by the appellants. It would be referred while dealing with the arguments of the appellants to avoid bulkiness of the order. 23. It is however submitted by the counsel for the respondent that arguments have been made to contest the appeal limited to the issues raised by the appellant during the course of the argument. 24. We realize that despite an opportunity given by the Tribunal, the appellants had restricted their arguments to the extent indicated in the first part of the order and accordingly we would be dealing with issues limited to what has been raised by the appellants during the course of arguments and accordingly our finding on each issue is as under:- FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL Non-application of mind by the Adjudicating Authority 25. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Adjudicating Authority failed to apply its mind and therefore impugned ordered serves to be set aside. It failed to even appreciate the arguments raised by the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal for the Appellant that the scheduled offences i.e. Section 384 and 120 B having been dropped from the chargesheet submitted against the accused Suryakant Tiwari in connection with the FIR No. 129 of 2022 registered at Kadugodi Police Station Bengaluru, and the ACJM Bengaluru vide the order dated 16.06.2023 having taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 204 and 353 IPC only, which are not the scheduled offences under the PMLA Act, no scheduled offence survived at the time of passing of the impugned order and that the proceedings were/are without jurisdiction. 27. Apart from the fact that neither the Chargesheet dated 08.06.2023 nor the cognizance order 16.06.2023 were placed on record during the course of arguments before the High Court as they never existed at that time, the I.O. in the Chargesheet filed in connection with the said FIR no. 129 of 2022 against Suryakant Tiwari has categorically mentioned that "as the accused (Suryakant Tiwari) found to be committed offence under Section 384 of IPC with his henchmen at Chhattisgarh State for which the report would be prayed to Chhattisgarh Police through proper channel." Hence, the of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ower to drop the charge rather if a case is not made out, it can recommend for closure. It is coupled with the fact that the Special Court of Karnataka has made a reference to request State Police for transfer of the offence under section 384 of IPC to Chhattisgarh State Police. The FIR was then registered by Chhattisgarh State Police which was not only for the offence referred in the FIR but was with the addition of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other schedule offences. In any case, we are not required to elaborate the issue having been decided by the Apex Court in reference to the same FIR and ECIR holding a case of predicate offence. 30. We are however required to deal with the two orders referred by the appellants on their bail application. The reference of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal in Special Appeal 5890/24 decided by the order 17.05.2024 has been given. We have gone through the order but do not find a conclusion on the issue rather the perusal of the order shows that the appeal was deferred to 07.08.2024 while granting interim bail to the appellant. The Apex Court found that the petitioner has already unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 52 properties and out of which 29 were purchased before 12.07.2022 when the FIR was registered. 34. The arguments have been made in ignorance of the fact that the relevant date to find out the proceed would not be the date when the FIR was lodged but the time of operation of crime because the FIR may be registered after finding an offence which may be in operation for substantial period. In the instant case, the syndicate of Suryakant Tiwari has not extorted money overnight but during the period of its operation which was started much prior to the registration of the FIR. It is otherwise settled law of the land that the properties acquired prior to the commission of the crime can also be made subject matter of the attachment if the proceeds are not available or vanished. The issue aforesaid has been dealt with by this Tribunal in the case of Shri Sadananda Nayak Vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar decided by the order dated 14.10.2024 The relevant paras of the order are quoted hereunder:- 10. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant did not raise argument in reference to registration of the FIR and recording of the ECIR, followed by investigati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in a case of dacoit, the accused secured the money and it has been used for the purchase of property, then such a property would fall in the definition of "proceeds of crime" having been obtained out of proceeds of crime. In other case where the property was not acquired or derived by the accused himself but he passed on money out of the crime to another person and he acquired the property, then also it would be considered to be the proceeds of crime to acquire the property. In any case, there should be an element for use of the proceeds directly or indirectly obtained out of the crime and thereby the property would have nexus with the crime. 14. In second part "the value of any such property" the definition aforesaid starts with "or" after the first part referred and discussed in the para above. The second part of the definition is commonly considered to be attachment of property of equivalent value. The second part applies when the property obtained or derived directly or indirectly out of the criminal activities is not available or vanished and, therefore, to secure the proceeds of equivalent value till completion of trial, it would fall under "the value of any such pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o of the value of any such property. If the property is taken or held outside the country, even in such a case, the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad can be proceeded with. The definition of "property" as in Section 2(1)(v) is equally wide enough to encompass the value of the property of proceeds of crime. Such interpretation would further the legislative intent in recovery of the proceeds of crime and vesting it in the Central Government for effective prevention of money laundering." The perusal of the para quoted above shows that the argument of the appellant that "the value of any such property" would be only when the proceeds have been taken out of India. The argument aforesaid was not accepted and it simplifies that the definition of "proceeds of crime" has three limbs and elaborate judgment to define the "proceeds of crime" was given by the Delhi High Court in the case of Axis Bank (supra). The relevant paras are quoted herein. "106. Among the three kinds of attachable properties mentioned above, the first may be referred to, for sake of convenience, as "tainted property" in as much as there would assumable be evidence to prima f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be when proceeds of crime has been vanished and is not available. It is sought to achieve the object of the Act of 2002. 18. In the light of judgment of the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), we are unable to apply the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Satish Motilal Bidri (supra). The Ld. counsel did not refer the relevant para of the judgment in the case (supra), rather he referred Para 66 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) which permits attachment only of the proceeds of crime. There cannot be any dispute that attachment can be only of the proceeds of crime but what would fall in the definition of "proceeds of crime" and clarified in Para 68 of the same judgment has not been taken into consideration whereas judgement of the Apex Court on the issue is binding on the High Court. 19. The reference to the judgment in the case of Pavana Dibur (supra) has been given where the Ld. Counsel for the parties did not refer Para 68 of the judgment in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) decided by three judges of the Apex Court. In fact, elaborate arguments to define "proceeds of crime" on the issue were not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to confer authority upon the Directorate to proceed further in such a situation that Section 2(1)(u) uses the expression or the value of any such property. The safeguard which stands constructed in Section 2(1)(u) in such a contingency is that in case the Directorate does proceed against any other property, it must be equivalent in value to the illegal pecuniary benefit or gain that may have been obtained as a result of criminal activity. 80. In the considered opinion of this Court to tie the Directorate's power to move forward in this direction only in cases where property is taken or held outside the country would not only do violence to the plain language of Section 2(1)(u), it would clearly whittle down the scope and intent of the definition itself. It would essentially amount to erasing the expression value of any such property as appearing in Section 2(1)(u) altogether. The Court further notes that in Seema Garg the learned Judges themselves observed that the phrase value of any such property would not mean and include any property which has no link, direct or indirect, with property derived or obtained from commission of a scheduled offence. The Court observes that Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded that the petition was being rejected in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The dismissal of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition cannot in any case be interpreted or understood as being an affirmation of the view as expressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. xxxx 105. It would be pertinent to recall that properties which were acquired prior to the enforcement of the Act may not be completely immune from action under the Act in light of what this Court had held in Axis Bank. As was explained by the Court in Axis Bank, the expression proceeds of crime envisage both ―tainted property as well as ―untainted property with it being permissible to proceed against the latter provided it is being attached as equal to the "value of any such property" or "property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad". However, both the italicised categories would be liable to be invoked in cases where the actual tainted property cannot be traced or found out. It is only where the respondents are unable to discover the tainted property that they can take the statutory recourse to move against properties which may fall within the ambit of &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh dated 31.07.2024. The relevant para of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: "It is not that only those properties which have been were derived or obtained directly or indirectly out of the crime can be attached rather in case of non availability of the property derived or obtained directly or indirectly rather when it is vanished or siphoned off, the attachment can be of any property of equivalent value. It is necessary to clarify that the proceeds of crime would not only include the property derived or obtained directly or indirectly out of the criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence but any other property of equivalent value. The word "or" has been placed before "the value of any such property" and is of great significance. Any property of equivalent value can be attached when the proceeds directly or indirectly obtained out of the crime has been vanished or siphoned off. Here, the significance would be to the property acquired even prior to commission of crime. It is for the reason that any property acquired subsequent to the commission of crime would be directly or indirectly proceeds of crime and then, it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The appellant may have acquired the property prior to the registration of the FIR but period of operation of crime started much prior to the registration of the FIR and otherwise if the proceeds has been vanished or siphoned off, the property of the equivalent value can be attached. It is otherwise submitted that appellants have been named for commission of the offence under the Act of 2002. 36. To further analyze the issue, we may discuss the role of the person and the source to acquire the property. ROLE OF THE ACCUSED: 1. ROLE OF SH. SAMEER VISHNOI, IAS : Shri Sameer Vishnoi misused his official position and acting on the instructions of Shri Suryakant Tiwari issued the letter dated 15.07.2020 instructing for manual coal delivery orders by the concerned mining office instead of online. This in turn allowed Shri Suryakant Tiwari in connivance with the Mining Officers to illegally extort an amount of Rs. 25/ton for coal transportation. The issuance of the order dated 15.07.2020 at the instance of Suryakant Tiwari is corroborated from the record recovered from him. It is in lieu of passing the orders, Shri Suryakant Tiwari extended bribes for it to Shri Sameer Vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the cash of Rs. 26, 00,000/- and Jewellery and gold bullion seized from his residential premises, pertain to his wife Preeti Godara. And Preeti Godara in her statement stated that the said jewellery recovered from their possession pertains to her, however in her subsequent statement under section 50 of the PMLA, she stated the names of various false owners of the said seized cash and jewellery. Afterwards, family members of Sameer Vishnoi filed several appeals to claim legal ownership of the tainted property. (iv) With respect to the seizure of cash Rs. 21, 03,900, Preeti Godara stated that this money belongs to her brother-in-law Surya Prakash Punia. Surya Prakash Punia in his statement recorded u/s 50 of PMLA tried to create false ownership of the seized valuables and projected it as an untainted by concocting a false story. The persons named to claim ownership of movable properties failed to disclose source to acquire the property and disclosure in the Income Tax returns and Wealth Tax Returns. The subsequent statement of Preeti Godara could not stand to proof. List of properties purchased in the name of Mrs. Preeti Godara and her entities. Sr No. Descri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income. 3. ROLE OF SMT. SAUMYA CHAURASIA, DEPUTY SECRETARY, CMO (i) Smt. Saumya Chaurasia was holding the post of Dy. Secretary in the Chief Ministry Office. She enjoyed powerful position over the entire State bureaucracy. She was the source of influence for Shri Suryakant Tiwari over the bureaucrats. Sh. Suryakant Tiwari was the layer between her and the state Bureaucrats. All illegal communication/ Recommendations etc. were routed through Smt. Saumya Chaurasia by Shri Suryakant Tiwari. She has enjoyed the proceeds of crime generated by the syndicate of Suryakant Tiwari. She acquired tainted assets by layering the ill-gotten cash from extortion. (ii) During the course of investigation it was revealed that the funds acquired out of extortion by the syndicate run by Mr. Suryakant Tiwari was moved to Manish Upadhyay, proxy of Ms. Saumya Chaurasia with ultimate utilization for purchase of land in the name of Ms. Shanti Devi (mother of Saumya Chaurasia), Sh. Anurag Chaurasia (Cousin) and Saurabh Modi(Husband). (iii) The entries of cash given to "MU" (Manish Upadhyay) were found in the handwritten diaries of Shri Suryakant Tiwari seized by the Income Tax D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o Om Narayan Chaurasia 04.02.2022 2. 1. Premnath 2. Swarsati 3. Indrabai S/o Damodar Chandrakar Total Rs. 33,65,000 Khasra No.762/1, Area 1.200 hec. Gram- Rashni, R.N.M., Tehsil - Aarang, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) Shanti Devi Chaurasia, W/o Om Narayan Chaurasia 31.01.2022 3. 1. Punitram 2. Salikram 3. Balram S/o Hannu Total Rs. 31,45,000 Khasra No.758 & 761, Area 1.1200 hec., Gram- Rashni, R.N.M., Tehsil - Aarang, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) Shanti Devi Chaurasia, W/o Om Narayan Chaurasia 31.01.2022 4. Bharatlal S/o Saradhu Rs. 8,69,500 Khasra No. 762/2 & 815, Area 0.3100 hec., Gram- Rashni, R.N.M., Tehsil - Aarang, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) Shanti Devi Chaurasia, W/o Om Narayan Chaurasia 31.01.2022 5. Omprakash S/o Girjanand Gupta Total Rs. 30,15,000 Khasra No. 847 & 842, Area 1.1770 hec. Nagar Palika R.N.M., Aarang, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) Shanti Devi Chaurasia, W/o Om Narayan Chaurasia 31.01.2022 Total....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 16. Yashwant Kumar S/o Mohan Lal Total Rs. 9,00,000 Khasra No. 909/2, 924, 925/2, 926/2, 927, 928, 929 Area 0.890, Gram Potiya R.N.M., Dhamdha Distt-Durg Shanti Devi Chaurasia W/o O. N. Chaurasia 29.03.2022 17. Ishwari Parsad S/o Mohan Lal Total Rs. 8,00,000 Khasra No. 908, 909/1, 925/1, 930, Area 0.890, Gram Potiya R.N.M., Dhamdha Distt- Durg Shanti Devi Chaurasia W/o O. N. Chaurasia 29.03.2022 18. (1) Satrughan Deshmukh S/o Mohan Lal (2) Inder Bai D/o Mohan Lal (3) Geeta Bai D/o Mohan Lal (4) Shanti Bai W/o Mohan Lal Total Rs. 3,00,000 Khasra No. 926/1, Area 0.4000 hec. Gram Potiya, R.N.M., Dhamdha Distt-Durg Shanti Devi Chaurasia W/o O. N. Chaurasia 29.03.2022 Total Area 25.65 Hect. (v) Suryakant Tiwari assisted Shanti Devi Chaurasia in purchase of the land and for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 weeks corresponding to the sale of his lands. Statements of the buyers were also recorded u/s 50 to corroborate his claim, but all the buyers denied paying such large sum as per his claims. (x) Further, his name was also featured in the diary of Surya Kant Tiwari and an entry of Rs. 54.40 Lakh has been made against his name. (xi) A parcel of land has been purchased from 5 persons namely Ashutosh Vyas, Pragya Vyas, Neel Jaan, Raman Jaan and Smt Roopa. During the course of investigation, an agreement was found which has been signed by Mr. Ashutosh Vyas, Mrs. Pragya Vyas and Manish Upadhyay. Earlier, this property was to be sold to Manish Upadhyay as per the agreement but later the properties were registered in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi Chaurasia. (xii) The parcel of land has been sold by Shri Yashwant Lal S/o Mohan Lal, Shatruhan Deshmukh S/o Mohan Lal, Sh. Ishwari Prasad S/o Mohan Lal and Sh. Ishwari Prasad S/o Mohan Lal. (xiii) A calculation sheet for the purchase of the same land has been shared by Manish Upadhyay with Roshan Singh (one of the confidants of Suryakant Tiwari) over WhatsApp. The cheque figures of Rs. 20 lakh mentioned in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven as under:- Land at Thakuraintola 21. Shanti Devi Chaurasia W/o O. N. Chaurasia Rs. 2,27,00,000 Kh. No. 368/2, 369/1, 369/2, 369/3, 372, 373, 380, 381, 384, 386, 390, 391, 392, 395, 397, 398, 409/2, 412/2, 412/4, 417/1, 417/2, 417/3, 418, 424, 371, 382, 383, 385, 387, 388, 389, 393, 394, 396, 402, 403, 404 & 411/2, Area- 5.15 Hect. At Thakuraintola, Patan, Dist-Durg, Chhattisgarh Shri Anil Agrawal 02.12.2021 Total 5.15 Hectare (ii) This land was first purchased in Sep 2021, in the name of Smt. Ashamani Modi, mother-in-law of Saumya Chaurasia. Within 5 months of this purchase, the land was transferred in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi Chaurasia for Rs. 11,92,000/-. Afterwards, within the period of 2-3 months the aforesaid land along with one adjacent land purchased in the name of Shanti Devi Chaurasia for Rs. 44,55,000/- in 2019 was sold to Mr. Anil Agrawal for Rs. 2,27,00,000/- against the total purchase cost of Rs 56,47,000/- (11,92,000 + 44,55,000). This 4 fold increase in the value of the land in a matter of 2-3 months is not explained by them. The transactions are interlinked between the main accused. (iii)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Ward No. 11, Mauza Shankar Nagar, Raipur 07.01.2022 Rs. 41,57,000/- Shri Shesh Charan Tiwari : He is a relative and one of the benamidars of Suryakant Tiwari. 5. Khasra no. 2424 admeasuring to 0.20 Hectare, Vill- Belsonda, PHN 36, Tehsil & Dist- Mahasamund. 25.01.2022 Rs. 4,80,500/- 12.08.2022 Rs. 12,10,000/- 6. Khasra no. 2426/2 (0.0904 Hect), 2427/3 (0.0292 Hect) & 2427/1 (0.1008 Hect), total admeasuring to 0.2204 Hectare ,Vill-Belsonda PHN 36, Tehsil & Dist Mahasamund. 28.12.202 Rs. 14,70,000/- (cheque) 7. Khasra no. 339/1 admeasuring to 1.31 Hectare, Vill-Belsonda Railway Fatak Chowk Se Saradih Road-PHN 36, Tehsil + Dist Mahasamund. 12-11-2021, Rs 31,45,000/- (Cheque) 16.08.2022 Rs 31,45,000/- (Cheque) M/s A.A. Buildcon, Partner- Shri Avinash Pandey 8. Municipal House NO. I-24, situated at Khasra no. 1/1 (New 1/12), Mauza-Shankar Nagar, Ward No. 29, PHN 110/63, Tehsil + Dist Raipur, C.G 27.04.2022 Rs. 1,36,06, 000/- 05.08.2022 Rs. 1,51,05,000/- Shri Rajnikant Tiwari : He is the brother of Suryakant Tiwari, and he used to maintain the record of illegal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 Rs. 34,61,000/- M/s S.S. Builder Developers: Suryakant Tiwari and Rajnikant Tiwari are partners in M/s S S Builders Developers. 20. KH No. 1235 (1.27 R.A.) & 1237 (0.70 R.A.), Gram- Nardaha, The Arang, Distt Raipur 10.12.2020 Rs. 1,02,43,000/- 21.07.2022 Rs. 3,23,15,000/- 21. KH No. 1157 (0.80 R.A.) 1180 (0.23 R.A.), 1236 (2.59 R.A.) Gram- Nardaha, The- Arang, Distt Raipur 10.12.2020 Rs. 1,88,23,000/- Utkarsh Tiwari: He is the son of Mr. Laxmikant Tiwari and one of the benamidars of Suryakant Tiwari. 22. Kh. No. 102/2 , Area 0.1300 Hec., Vill-Belsonda, Tehsil & Distt Mahasamund 09-12-2021 Rs. 8,66,500/- (cheque) 12.08.2022 Rs. 3,12,500/- Firm- Maharaj Mordhwaj Megha Projects- Partner- Utkarsh Tiwari 23. Kh No- 784/1(0.16 hect), 784/3(0.17 hect), 787/2(0.45 hect), 787/3(0.20 hect), 787/4(0.38 hect), 788(0.30 hect), 789(0.08 hect), 790(0.07 hect), 791/1(0.85 hect), 791/2(0.96 hect), 791/3(0.90 hect), 794/4(0.42 hect), 795(0.83 hect), Area-5.76 hec., Gram - Rasani The- Arang- Distt- Raipur 09-02-2022 Rs. 3,05,00,000/- 04.08.2022 Rs. 3,05,00,000/- 6,92,00,000 (ii) Surya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wari through his firm against cash. Some entries pertaining to N D Agrawal were also found in hand written diaries seized by Income Tax Department. (viii) The seller of the property Smt. Sushma Jhabak, in her statement, admitted that she had sold 3.5 acre of her land to Smt. Divya Tiwari for an amount of Rs. 35 Lakh out of which the registered value of Rs. 20,67,000/- was received in her bank account and the rest amount i.e Rs. 14,33,000/- was paid in cash in parts by Rajnikant Tiwari & Pappu Sahu. Multiple bank account receipts were also found in digital devices which indicate cash deposits in her account. (ix) She was summoned on multiple occasions, but did not appear before ED. Hence, she could not discharge the burden of proof under section 24 of the PMLA, 2002 that the proceeds of crime are untainted. (x) Shri Laxmikant Tiwari, in his statements has admitted that all the land transactions done in his name, in the name of his wife & children were entirely done as per the instructions and at the behest of Mr Suryakant Tiwari. (xi) M/s Ridhi Sidhi Build con was provided entry worth Rs 75 lakh by M/s Prithvi Build con for purchase of properties ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transactions were sham transactions and in fact Mr Sunil Agarwal's Indramani Group is holding these assets for Mr Suryakant Tiwari and his benamis. (ii) Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal purchased the coal washeries from M/s Maa Madwarani Coal Beneficiation Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration amount of Rs. 34 Crore to conceal the "Proceeds of Crime". The properties held by Mr Sunil Agarwal (Promoter of KJSL) S No Description of properties Original Seller Sold for amount & Remarks Purchased by Sold for amount Sold to KJSL vide Sale deed dated. 1 Khasra no. 423/1, 423/2, 423/3, 424/2, 424/3, 424/4, 425/2, 439/2 admeasuring to 0.937 Hectare, Mauza GramJamnipali, Patwari Halka No. 13, RNM - Kothari/Kartala, Tehsil - Kartala, Distt. - Korba Indus Udyog and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Director - Sh. Ashish Kumar Agrawal, S/o - Sh. Rajkumar Agrawal (Deed dated 26.05.2022) Rs. 23,20,000/- (Cheque) Maa Madwarani Coal Benification Pvt Ltd, Partnership - 1. Sh. Rajnikant Tiwari , S/o - Sh. Shashib hushan Tiwari 2. Sh. Hemant Jaiswal, Rs. 1,00,61,000 (Rs. 9,60,390/- Cheque/DD) & (Rs. 1,00,610/- TDS) 02.08.2022 2 Khasra no. 438/4, 440, 44....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NM - Kothari/Kartala, Tehsil - Kartala, Distt. - Korba Indus Udyog and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Director - Sh. Ashish Kumar Agrawal, S/o - Sh. Rajkumar Agrawal (Deed dated 03.06.2022) Rs. 7,02,28,100 (Rs. 6,95,25,819/- (Cheque) & 7,02,28/- (TDS) Maa Madwarani Coal Benification Pvt Ltd Rs. 27,46,00,000/- (Rs. 27,18,54,000/- Cheque) & (Rs. 27,46,000/- (TDS) 02.08.2022 9 Khasra no. 263/5, 265/4 admeasuring to 0.118 Hectare, Mauza GramJamnipali, Patwari Halka No. 13, RNM - Kothari/Kartala, Tehsil - Kartala, Distt. - Korba Indus Udyog and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Director - Sh. Ashish Kumar Agrawal, S/o - Sh. Rajkumar Agrawal (Deed dated 03.06.2022) Rs. 8,77,69,500 (Rs. 5,18,91,805/- (Cheque), 3,50,00,000/- (RTGS) & 8,77,695/- (TDS) Maa Madwarani Coal Benification Pvt Ltd, 10 Khasra no. 263/6, 265/5 admeasuring to 0.118 Hectare, Mauza GramJamnipali, Patwari Halka No. 13, RNM - Kothari/Kartala, Tehsil - Kartala, Distt. - Korba Indus Udyog and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Director - Sh. Ashish Kumar Agrawal, S/o - Sh. Rajkumar Agrawal (Deed dated 03.06.2022) Rs. 8,77,69,500 (Rs. 3,78,91,805/- (Cheque), 4,90,00,000/- (RTGS) & 8,77,695/- (TDS) Maa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....they have failed to disclose the source to acquire 52 properties within a period of few years. (iv) Even if we consider their financial status as a Company, it is not clarified that the income was used to purchase the immovable properties instead of using it as a capital for the industries. Vague statement of facts cannot be accepted and otherwise we find that even 29 properties stated to have been purchased before the commission of crime. We find it to be in ignorance of the period of the crime. It has been taken from the date of registration of the FIR whereas the commission offence started much prior to the date of registration of the FIR. The syndicate of Suryakant Tiwari was involved in extortion much prior to the registration of the FIR and thereby if the period of commission of crime is taken into consideration, the properties were purchased during the period aforesaid and even subsequent to that. (v) In the appeal, the appellant have failed to disclose the source to acquire the property other than to refer to the financial status. Without disclosing and accounting as to how the cash involved for the purchase of property came to them. The huge amount was pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llants who infact did not raise an argument on the issue aforesaid other than in few cases. Though pleadings have been made by the other appellants also to show disclosure of source but was not argued at the time of final hearing rather pressed their appeals on the common issues only. Absence of reason to believe 41. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that no reasons to believe was given by the Adjudicating Authority while issuing show cause notice. It should have been for each appellant separately. We have considered the issue aforesaid and perused the show cause notice given by the Adjudicating Authority. 42.First, we do not find a contest on the aforesaid before the Adjudicating Authority, otherwise it has given reasons to believe for issuance of notice. It is not necessary that for the show cause notice, it should be against the person committing the offence under section 3 of the Act of 2002, but can be against the person in possession of crime proceeds. It is not necessary to give reasons to believe separately but can be for the noticee together. The appellants are either the accused or in possession of proceeds of crime and has been indicated in the show....