TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1081
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment Order dated 11.02.2022. 2. It is a case where an FIR was registered on 07.03.2016 on a complaint of Shri C. Sridharan, DGM, Syndicate Bank, New Delhi against Satish Kumar Goel, General Manager, Sanjeev Kumar, Deputy General Manager and many other bank officials, the main accused Bharat Bomb and Shankar Lal Khandelwal and many others. 3. The allegation was that the officials of three branches of Syndicate Bank in collusion with group of customers inter linked fraudulent transactions among the three branches by resorting to discounting of forged cheques, discounting of forged inland bills and availing overdraft facility against non- existent LIC policies caused huge loss to the bank with dishonest intention. The amount to the tune of Rs. 1055 Crores was siphoned off and master mind of the said offence was a Chartered Accountant Bharat Bomb and two other Shankar Lal Khandelwal and Piyush Jain along with the bank officials. 4. So far as the appellants are concerned, they have not been connected directly with the commission of offence but their properties have been provisionally attached finding it to be out of the proceeds of crime in the hands of the main accused Shankar Lal K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IIrd Floor, Guman Heights Complex, Muhana Mandi, Jaipur from Goverdhan Lal Khandelwal, a relative of main accused Shankar Lal Khandelwal for a consideration of Rs. 15.50 Lakhs. The source to purchase the Flat was reflected. It was withdrawal of the amount from the partnership firm M/s Silver Art Palace through the banking channel. For the transaction of Rs. 15.50 Lakhs with the relative of the main accused, a joint property of the appellant Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and his father Kishan Lal Agarwal worth of Rs. 13 Crores has been attached in an erroneous manner. It was based on the statement of the main accused Shankar Lal Khandelwal who stated that the consideration received on sale of Flat No.302 by Goverdhan Lal Khandelwal was returned in cash to Navrattan Lal Agarwal. It is without showing withdrawal of the cash from the bank account of Goverdhan Lal Khandelwal. There was no evidence that Navrattan Lal Agarwal passed on alleged cash amount to the appellant Dinesh Kumar Agarwal. Thereby, without any evidence on record, the respondents drawn conclusion against the appellant and that too going contrary to the evidence produced by the appellant to show purchase of Flat No. 302 through ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced on record with the appeals. Thus, the very foundation for attachment of the property gets vitiated based on the affidavit. 11. The counsel for the appellants then referred to the agriculture land bearing Khasra No.307, Village Manchwa, Kalwar Road valued at Rs. 62,06,151/-. The land was purchased by the appellants jointly in April, 2005 and August, 2007 well before the period of the predicate offence. The appellant Mukesh Agarwal was having share 15/31 while Manoj Agarwal was having share ratio of 16/31 in the land and has been reflected in the Jamabandhi. The allegation against the appellant was that the main accused Shankar Lal Khandelwal through M/s Shree Govind Kripa Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. paid a sum of Rs. 1.55 Crores (Rs.67 Lakhs to Mukesh Agarwal and Rs. 88 Lakhs to Manoj Agarwal) for the said land out of the proceeds of crime though respondents at their own motion valued the property at Rs. 2,37,68,323/-. In fact Rs. 67 Lakhs was repaid in July, 2017 by Mukesh Agarwal and the remaining Rs. 88 Lakhs was repaid in July, 2017 by Manoj Agarwal as would be borne out from the ledger of M/s Govind Kripa Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The payment of Rs. 1.55 Crores was otherwise having no co-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Agarwal. The documents were concocted by the main accused Shankar Lal Khandelwal to save himself and otherwise it should have contained signatures of both the parties to the settlement whereas it was containing signature of only Shri Shankar Lal Khandelwal. The settlement deeds were not containing even signature of any witness yet relied upon by the respondents based on the statement of other witnesses who alleged settlement between Shankar Lal Khandelwal and Navrattan Lal Agarwal though appellants had no relation to the aforesaid yet their properties have been attached only for the reason that they are the relatives of Navrattan Lal Agarwal. 15. In the two alleged settlement deeds, a reference of repayment of Rs. 7.5 Crores in one Patra and Rs. 7.75 Crores in other Patra was given which was said to be for repayment of the loan advanced by Navrattan Lal Agarwal to Shankar Lal Khandelwal. It was stated that the amount aforesaid was repaid to Navrattan Lal Agarwal in cash and jewellery out of the proceeds of crime. The respondents ignored the fact that if the main accused Shankar Lal Khandelwal owed the loan from Navrattan Lal Agarwal, its repayment could not have been taken to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e light of the affidavit given by Shankar Lal Khandelwal refuting allegations against Navrattan Lal Agarwal and even appellants, no case remained against the appellant. 19. In the affidavit submitted by Shankar Lal Khandelwal, it was categorically stated that the statement against Navrattan Lal Agarwal before the Enforcement Directorate was made because Navrattan Lal Agarwal lodged cases against him and refused to share the land for his Parth City Project. It is with a further statement that all the transactions with Navrattan Lal Agarwal and his family members was through the banking channel and no payment was ever made in cash. The affidavit was executed on 05.05.2022 but ignored by the respondent. 20. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that no reasons to believe in terms of Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 was formed by the Adjudicating Authority thus on the aforesaid legal ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. It is with the further statement that the appellants have co- operated with the respondents but they were tortured. Navrattan Lal Agarwal at the age of 75 years with multiple health complexities appeared for investigation but he was also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Thus, the payment aforesaid was made in cash though earlier received from Mukesh Agarwal and Manoj Agarwal through the banking channel. 24. In the investigation, the bank account statements of individuals/ entities were analyzed and it was found that Rs. 19.04 Lakhs was given by Shri Govind Kripa Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. to Dinesh Agarwal and Mukesh Agarwal apart from Vimla Devi for the land in Village Manchwa, Kalwar Road. The amount so transferred was in excess to the consideration, therefore, it was taken to be the proceeds of crime. The respondents accordingly justified the attachment of property. 25. The counsel for the respondents further made a reference of statement of Rajpal Yadav, Satya Narayan Gupta and Bitthal Das Parwal apart from Dilip Kumawat recorded under Section 50(2) of the Act of 2002 who had confirmed about the settlement between Shankar Lal Khandelwal and Navrattan Lal Agarwal which endorsed transfer of jewellery to Navrattan Lal Agarwal in settlement with Shankar Lal Khandelwal. The gold was handed over through Satya Narayan Gupta. Shri Satya Narayan Gupta also corroborated the settlement deed whereby the entire amount borrowed by Shankar Lal Khandelwal f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts could not clarify how reliance on a settlement deed not executed by the consenting parties could have been made. If there would have been settlement between the two parties, there was no reason that the deed would contain signature only of one party leaving other. We further find contradictions in the statement of the witnesses which has been largely reflected by the counsel for the appellants because if the statement of all the witnesses is taken together, not only contradiction is revealed but even witnesses have not been endorsed presence of others at the time of alleged settlement and vice versa. The aforesaid is not end of the issue in reference to the settlement deed, rather based on the settlement deed, an FIR was lodged by the relative of main accused Shankar Lal Khandelwal, namely, Tikkam Khandelwal. Therein, statements of Shankar Lal Khandelwal and Tikkam Khandelwal were recorded by the police during the course of investigation. The police after its investigation filed the closure report finding no substance in the allegation. The closure report was accepted by the jurisdictional court but going against the judicial propriety, the respondents still relied on the alleg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for cash payment to Navrattan Lal Agarwal is similar in regard to other transactions. Despite the documentary proof produced by the appellants, the respondents have relied on the oral statement which was of none else but the main accused with whom the litigations were existing even at the instance of Navrattan Lal Agarwal. It is a further fact that Shankar Lal Khandelwal, the main accused, executed an affidavit on 05.05.2022 to the effect that whatever statement he made on 23.02.2021 before the Enforcement Directorate was out of rivalry with Navrattan Lal Agarwal. It was because of the litigation initiated by him and he even refused to give the land for Parth City Project. It is with a further statement that there was no cash transaction between him and the family members of Navrattan Lal Agarwal. The affidavit aforesaid is reproduced hereunder: "शपथ पत्र शंकर लाल खण्डेलवाल पुत्र श्री मोहन लाल खण्डेलवा....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....46;त्र से लेख है की मेरा आज तक श्री नवरतन अग्रवाल एवं उनके परिवार से जो भी लेन देन हुई है वह बैंक के माध्यम से ही हुई है और मैंने आज तक उनको कभी भी नकद में कोई भुगतान नहीं किया ना ही बैंक में प्राप्त रुपये लौटाये है।....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eference to each property. 34. Plot No.D-39, Subhash Marg, Jaipur in the name of Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and Kishan Lal Agarwal has been attached though the source to purchase the property has been disclosed which was out of the withdrawal of capital from their partnership firm M/s Silver Art Palace. The bank statements of M/s Silver Art Palace were produced to indicate the withdrawal of the amount and to further reflect that no cash amount was deposited or withdrawn. It is with a further statement that no cash amount was deposited even in the bank account of the appellants. The respondents could not clarify as to how the property aforesaid could have been attached treating it to be proceeds of crime and if it is for the value thereof, needs to be justified. The property aforesaid has been attached in reference to Flat No. 302, III Floor, Guman Heights Complex, Jaipur purchased from Goverdhan Lal Khandelwal, a relative of main accused Shankar Lal Khandelwal for a consideration of Rs. 15.50 Lakhs through the banking channel. The amount was transferred from the partnership firm M/s Silver Art Palace and is reflected in the bank statement. The sale consideration was thus paid through th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed cash amount passed on by Navrattan Lal Agarwal to the appellant. It is otherwise against the affidavit given by Shankar Lal Khandelwal to indicate that no cash was ever paid. 36. The analysis can further remain in reference to the alleged settlement deed where indication of return of the consideration for purchase of the property does not exist. The respondents could not otherwise clarify that when the source to purchase the property has been disclosed how attachment for equivalent amount could have been made. It could have been only when it is out of the proceeds of crime and non- disclosure of source for purchase of the property by the appellants. 37. The agriculture land bearing Khasra No.307, Village Manchwa, Kalwar Road is another property valued at Rs. 62,06,151/-. It was purchased by the appellant Mukesh Agarwal and Manoj Agarwal in equal share. The allegation was that Shankar Lal Khandelwal through M/s Govind Kripa Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. paid Rs. 1.55 Crores to Mukesh Agarwal and Manoj Agarwal. The allegation aforesaid was taken against the appellants in ignorance of the fact that the amount of Rs. 67 lakhs was repaid by Mukesh Agarwal and Rs. 88 Lakhs by Manoj Agarwal in ....