TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is alleged that the office bearers of Srijan Mahila Vikas Sahyog Samiti Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "S.M.V.S.S.L.") Sabour, Bhagalpur, in conspiracy with the officers / office bearers of Indian Bank, Patal Babu Road, Bhagalpur, Bank of Baroda, Dr. R.P. Road, Ghanta Ghar, Bhagalpur, Bank of Baroda, Saharsa and State Government officials and others illegally transferred and misused the public funds from State Govt. accounts in fraudulent manner for personal gain. It is further alleged that the petitioner and other co-accused persons have acquired proceeds of crime by commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 47, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the charges of corruption, criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery related to Schedule Offences as defined under P.M.L. Act and by investing the said proceeds of crime in various movable and immovable properties, in an attempt to project it as untainted, all have committed offence under Section 3 of the P.M.L. Act, which is punishable under Section 4 of the P.M.L. Act. Thus, the complaint under Section 44 & 45 of the P.M.L. Act has been filed against 22 accused perso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....021 arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/04/2018 dated 24.05.2018 has been registered for the offence under Section 3 / 4 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002 and thereafter, cognizance has also been taken against petitioner and other co-accused persons for the offences under Section 4 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002 by the Court of learned Sessions Judge / Special Judge, (PMLA), Patna, vide order dated 04.10.2021. 5. It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is false and baseless. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner was posted as Sub Divisional Audit Officer, Cooperative Society, Bhagalpur since June, 1999 and he retired from the said post on 31.03.2016 and in the entire service period, petitioner was blameless and was not found indulged in any kind of discrepancy or fraudulent act, as a government servant. Petitioner never received any unaccounted money or illegal amount in his bank account during his service period nor after his retirement. Being Sub-Divisional Audit Officer, the petitioner had played no role in any manner to get funds transferred in the name of SMVSSL nor he has filled up an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted as Sub Divisional Audit Officer, Bhagalpur, was involved in conspiracy of Srijan Scam and he deliberately failed to properly audit the account of SMVSSL and was one of the close associates of Late Manorama Devi. In lieu of assistance provided by this petitioner, he was offered flats in Gardenia Project, which were funded from the account of SMVSSL and Manorma Devi. Apart from the above, he played a crucial role in the Srijan Scam, which led to misappropriation of huge government money. The petitioner has acquired a flat, bearing No. Emerald 1/505, Gardenia Glamour Phase II Project for Rs. 25,00,000/- in the name of his daughter Meenakshi Jha w/o Suman Kumar Jha. During investigation, it revealed that Meenakshi Jha is maintaining a bank account with her husband in Indian Bank, Bhagalpur, which was managed by the petitioner to launder proceeds of crime. Illegal money was deposited in the said bank account and it was further used for acquisition of immovable property i.e. flat no. Emerald I/505, Gardenia Glamour, Ghaziabad. Thereafter, Flat no. I/605, Gardenia Glamour Phase II Project was booked for Rs. 25,00,000/- in the name of Himanshu Shekhar Jha (son of petitioner). The detai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tutory jurisdiction and not constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Unless there is proper challenge and pleadings, the issue of constitutional validity cannot be undertaken. Undoubtedly, the Legislature has power and competence to amend the provisions of the Act. Unless the amended provision is struck down by the Courts, it cannot be watered down. Since after the amendment the entire complexion of section 45 has been changed, we are not in agreement with the contention that the entire section has to be reenacted by way of amendment after decision in the case of Nikesh Shah (Supra). Therefore, in our opinion, the twin conditions would revive and operate by virtue of Amendment Act, which is on date in force. In view of that, we answer the reference by stating that the twin conditions in section 45(1) of the 2002 Act, which was declared unconstitutional by the judgment of the Apex Court in Nikesh T.Shah vs. Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 1, stand revived in view of the Legislative intervention vide Amendment Act 13 of 2018." 9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 4.1.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal no. 21 of 2022 (The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate vs. Dr....