TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 302 IPC apart from other offences wherein one Anil Kumar Pathak was murdered. The chargesheet was filed against the appellant Chandrama Prasad Singh and others. 3. Another FIR 68/12 dated 28.05.2012 was lodged for the scheduled offence with police station, Ramkrisha Nagar against Chandrama Prasad Singh, Dablu Kumar and many others causing offence under section 147, 148, 149, 385, 354, 379, 323, 307, 504 and 506 IPC. The allegation was that the accused person entered into the house of Pankaj Suman for extortion of Rs. Five lakhs. They had beaten the family of the complainant and snatched the mangalsutra. 3. The ECIR was then recorded followed by investigation where statements under section 50(2) and 50(3) of the PMLA Act of 2002 were recorded. The investigation revealed that the accused had acquired tainted money as a result of their criminal activities relating to scheduled offence and acquired movable and immovable properties in their own name or in the name of the family members to camouflage ill- gotten money to project it to be un-tainted. 4. The provisional attachment order was caused finding proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 4,04,29,415/- in the hands of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cash deposits in the bank accounts of Chandra Prasad Singh and his family members apart from Dablu Kumar and others were found where Rs. 2.7 crores was deposited in various bank accounts without having source of income to the extent of the cash deposited frequently in their bank account. Thereby, the respondents caused the provisional attachment order and confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant preferred this appeal. Argument of the learned counsel for the appellant 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the FIR registered against the accused did not disclose extortion of the money or loot so as to make out a case of money laundering. In fact, the commission of alleged offence did not yield the properties rather false allegations were made by the complainant for commission of offence under section 307 and 302 IPC apart from others. The ingredient of section 3 of the Act of 2002 could not be satisfied. It is missing in this case and to support the argument, reference of the bail order of the Supreme Court, the case of Chandrama Prasad Singh, criminal appeal number 569/24 dated 02.02.2024 was given. Therein, the Apex Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of proceeds of crime, their properties acquired out of the disclosed sources have been attached. A reference of the bail order passed by the Apex Court dated 2nd February, 2024 was given. The main issue raised by the appellant thus needs to be dealt with at the first step. 14. The FIR discloses commission of crime by the accused who are shown to be habitual. The investigation revealed evidence against the accused. The statement of witnesses were recorded under section 50(2), 50(3) of the Act of 2002 and therein not only allegation of extortion of money was found but even a case of money laundering. We would accordingly refer to the statements relevant to the case. 15. Santosh Kumar Pathak in his statement confirmed fraudulent acquisition of land by the accused in deceitful manner. He lodged the FIRs out of which one was causing offence under section 302 IPC apart from other offences. He stated that his brother Anil Kumar Pathak was having acquaintance with accused Chandrama Prasad Singh who even helped him at one stage. However, when he got to know that Santosh Kumar has purchased a land in the name of Anil Kumar (deceased in the murder case), he took documents to get them....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elatives and fake deeds of ownership. In fact, Chandrama Prasad Singh and his brother acted as land mafia for encroaching the land of others after using muscle power which was confirmed by the witness in their statement. The accused encroached the land of a construction Company. The Director of the construction company confirmed the allegation against the appellant. It is with the further statement that development agreements with the builders used to be manipulated to take money without delivery of possession. The Chandrama Prasad Singh and his family members entered into development agreements with various builders and after obtaining payments under those agreements, they did not hand over the possession and did not allow the construction by the builder and thereby illegally retained the land and money. The facts aforesaid were gathered in the statement of the witness recorded under 50(2) of the Act of 2002 which was corroborative in nature in view of the fact that one Sunil Kumar, Director of Radha Rani Construction Private Limited, Satish Raman, Director of Raman Kumar Construction Ltd., Sh. Muralidhar Pandey (Secretary of Suman Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti), Mr Pankaj Suman, Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 2002. 25. The statements recorded under section 50 of the Act of 2002 have been specifically referred to show involvement of the appellant in commission of crime of money laundering. The modus operandi to commit the offence was given which includes causing an offence under section 302 where Anil Kumar Pathak was murdered and thereafter accused involved in the land transaction to extract the money. The detailed analysis of the facts have been made in this case which seems to have not been brought to the notice of the Apex Court. Therefore, we would be unable to ignore the material brought before us to pass the order only on the basis of the bail order which otherwise did not culminate in acquittal or discharge of the accused but only shows a prima facie case based on material produced therein. 26. The case has another aspect to be dealt with for the reason that a notice under section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 is caused to find out the source for acquisition of alleged proceeds of crime and if the sources are not disclosed coupled with the involvement of the proceeds or its acquisition out of money laundering, the Adjudicating Authority passes an appropriate order. 27. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the year 2010-2013 every year and then in the year 2016. The value of the property is not matching to the income disclosed in the income tax returns of those years, even if we ignore that no document was submitted to disclose the source. The total income reflected in the ITR comes to Rs. 36 lakhs which is much below the value of the nine landed properties. This shows that the appellant failed to disclose the source for purchase of property and even we have commented on the income tax return to disclose the income but there is no corroborating document to show the business and the income generated out of it. 32. Mere reference of income tax return cannot result in with the finding that the income shown therein was not out of proceeds of crime. If we do it then it would be very easy for the accused to generate the proceeds of crime and then deposit cash in the bank account and at the same time, disclose it in the Income Tax Return. The Assessment Orders are otherwise not on record. The appellant has not produced bank statement to prove his income from any of the source corresponding to the income disclosed in the income tax returns. It is apart from the fact that even total inco....