TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 817
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.12.2022. 2. It is a case where 13 FIRs were registered by Jharkhand Police and 2 FIRs were registered by Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. It was against Ram Binod Prasad Sinha and others involving offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 423, 424, 465 and 120B IPC, 1860 and Section 11, 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After registration of the FIRs and investigation by the police and vigilance, ECIR was recorded by the respondents. 3. In the investigation pursuant to ECIR, it was found that appellant Smt. Pooja Singhal along with other engineers of Rural Works Department, Special Division and District Board, Khunti defalcated on many projects to the tune of Rs. 18.06 Crores. The statements of the accused and others were recorded under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 which includes the main accused Ram Binod Prasad Sinha who disclosed that he used to pay 5% of the allocated fund as commission to the District Administration i.e. DC Office of Khunti and DRDA. 4. Assistant Engineer R.K. Jain stated that the main accused Ram Binod Prasad Sinha was paying bribe to the appellant Smt. Pooja Singhal. It is with a further statement that on four occasions, he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a and Amit Jha, apart from M/s Pulse Sanjeevani Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Arguments of counsel for the appellants: 7. The learned counsel for the appellants at the outset gave description of the immovable properties provisionally attached by the respondents along with value of the properties to indicate that provisional attachment of the properties is grossly disproportionate to the proceeds of crime. It was submitted that the main allegation refers to the proceeds of crime of Rs. 18.06 Crores and as per the allegation of the ED, appellant Smt. Pooja Singhal was alleged to be receiving 5% commission which comes to Rs. 90 lakhs while properties worth of Rs. 18 Crores have been attached which is disproportionate to the proceeds of crime. 8. It is in ignorance of the fact that prior to the provisional attachment of the properties in the hands of the appellants, a Provisional Attachment Order was passed for the properties of Ram Binod Prasad Sinha causing attachment of the properties worth of Rs. 4.51 Crores. The Provisional Attachment Order was confirmed and, therefore, there was no reason to further attach the properties of the appellants and that too worth of Rs. 18 Crores as ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in mutual funds and subsequently both the sister and mother pooled these amounts into family accounts eventually used for capital in the Pulse Health Care. 12. The learned counsel further referred to the amount received during the course of marriage and ceremony of Tilak where he received Rs. 15 Lakhs during Tilak and Rs. 7 Lakhs in the wedding making a total amount of Rs. 23 Lakhs which was also used in regular and ordinary household and business affairs. The appellant Abhishek even received contributions for his business initiative in India from his immediate family and relatives which was duly reflected in the banking channels. Specially, his father and mother contributed around Rs. 10 Lakhs and sister approximately Rs. 6 lakhs, apart from other contributions which were deposited in the ICICI Bank account in the year 2012. The amount aforesaid was invested to establish diagnostic health care centre. The appellant Abhishek Jha invested Rs. 36 Lakhs into Pulse Diagnostics between the year 2011-12 and directly traceable to his clean foreign earnings and insurance proceeds. The appellant Abhishek Jha's total legitimate personal funds are traceable to Rs. 71 Lakhs approximately o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime. 16. The counsel for the appellants coming to legal ground submitted that Section 5(1)(b) of the Act of 2002 could have been invoked if the property is likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in a manner which may result frustrating confiscation of the property. It is submitted that there was no threat of concealment or dealing with the property being a hospital and diagnostic centre and in absence of the aforesaid, the respondents have wrongly caused the provision of invoking provisional attachment of the property. It is further submitted that there exists no nexus with the proceeds of crime, rather it has been analyzed in ignorance of the earning of Abhishek Jha and others with a further statement that Diagnostic Centre was incorporated only in the year 2011 and the Pulse Hospital project began in 2018 and description of the funds was given which was even out of the loans taken from the financial institution. 17. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the respondents failed to make distinction between the corporates and that of the individual. For individual's conduct and even involvement in commission of crime, the attachment could not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to receive locked bags containing cash from Ram Binod Prasad Sinha and to deliver directly to the Assistant Engineer R.K. Jain. He witnessed Ram Binod Prasad Sinha handing over bags containing large amount of cash for its onward deliver to Smt.Pooja Singhal on multiple occasions. The statements of R.K. Jain and Jai Kishore Chaudhary were also recorded who gave corroborative evidence to show that on account of nexus of Ram Binod Prasad Sinha with Smt. Pooja Singhal, not only many projects remained incomplete but no work was carried out. 5% commission on estimated cost of project was being paid to Smt. Pooja Singhal. Shashi Prakash along with R.K. Jain and Jai Kishore Chaudhary confirmed the aforesaid and, therefore, the investigation revealed commission of 5% passed on to the appellant Smt. Pooja Singhal. 20. The learned counsel for the appellants has calculated the proceeds of crime in the hands of the appellants to the extent of Rs. 90 Lakhs taking 5% commission on the amount of Rs. 18.06 Crores said to be proceeds of crime. It is in ignorance of the fact that 5% commission was on the sanctioned amount of the project and the amount sanctioned has not been taken to be proceeds ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t explain reasons for keeping the amount in cash for years, if received as a gift during the wedding ceremonies or out of savings. One is expected to deposit the amount immediately in bank account to make it safe but there is no evidence to prove the fact aforesaid. It is significant to note that an amount of Rs. 37 Lakhs was deposited in cash in the bank account at Daltonganj where Pooja Singhal was posted as DC. It has come on record that while Abhishek Jha was involved in the construction of hospital building and financial management, he received cash payments from CA Suman Kumar ranging between Rs. 40 to 60 lakhs on behalf of Pooja Singhal. He also made cash payments to contractors for the hospital's construction and equipment installation which was nothing but out of the proceeds of crime. Even for the capital infusion of a total of Rs. 41.90 lakhs into Pulse Sanjeevani Healthcare Pvt. Ltd, the investigation traced a significant portion of this capital back to cash deposits and complex routing of funds originating it from the proceeds of crime. 24. The appellant Abhishek Jha had received an insurance claim of Rs. 39.45 lakhs making a total of around Rs. 71 Lakhs. As per his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ruction of the hospital. We are not required to further ponder on the issue about the income out of the savings of hospital because figures taken by the respondents towards the proceeds of crime is while Pooja Singhal was posted at Khunti and had earned 5% commission of the project cost. It may further be added that if the appellant had taken bank loan and is taken into account for purchase of land or building for the hospital, then also it would be short of the amount incurred to establish the hospital. If the total figures are taken into account, then it would reveal that there are overlapping account to justify investment in the hospital without realizing that the major part of the investment was out of the proceeds of crime leaving a part which could have been out of the borrowing from the bank. In the light of the facts given above, we do not find that the respondents have wrongly caused provisional attachment of the properties. 27. The appellant Pooja Singhal could not explain deposit of Rs. 73.81 lakhs in the ICICI Bank account in cash just within two years during the financial years 2009-11. The deposits were wholly disproportionate to her known sources of income. The in....