TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1736
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, no case has been established against the petitioner under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA. The petitioner was appointed as the Minister of the Public Health Engineering Department ('PHED') in November 2021. In contrast, the main co-accused Padam Chand & Mahesh Mittal, who have been alleged to have procured tenders by using a forged IRCON certificate, bribing the officials, accumulated proceeds of crime and had been consistently securing tenders in the PHED since 2019. The petitioner even suspended an official, Vikrant Saxena, for falsely reporting the IRCON certificate as genuine and blacklisted the aforesaid co- accused from applying for or participating in the tender process. 3. The petitioner has been made accused in the alleged crime without any predicate offence, and his name did not appear in the charge sheet submitted against the other co-accused. Additionally, the petitioner's name is also absent from the Enforcement Case Information Report ('ECIR'). Subsequent FIRs regarding the forgery of the IRCON certificates were filed against the petitioner and the other co-accused after the charge sheet was submitted in the predicate offence. However, the petitioner was granted pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the co-accused Sanjay Badaya's was granted. 7. It is argued that according to the proviso of Subsection (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA, a person may be released on bail without fulfilling the twin conditions, if the proceeds of crime involved in money laundering, are less than one crore rupees. Furthermore, in this case, the prosecution claims that Rs. 50 lakh were credited to the account of the petitioner's son, M/s Sumangalam Landmark LLP. However, the prosecution has failed to demonstrate that the petitioner was involved in receiving proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 2.1 crore. There is no explanation from the prosecution regarding the allegation that the petitioner received Rs. 2.1 crore in bribe money and subsequently circulated Rs. 50 lakh through his son Rahul Joshi's firm, M/s Sumangalam Landmark LLP. The petitioner has clarified that the said amount of Rs. 50 lakh was credited to M/s Sumangalam Landmark LLP as a loan and the properties purchased by the petitioner and his family members were acquired legally. Therefore, the petitioner argues that his case falls within the ambit of the proviso appended to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, and based on these fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sited in the firm's account were fictitious and manipulated to layer the commission received from the two firms awarded ongoing work orders. 11. The counsel for the respondent contended that an amount of Rs. 5.40 crores was received through Sanjay Badaya, who is a close associate of the petitioner, out of which the petitioner allegedly received Rs. 2.01 crores. The current petitioner's role involved granting undue favours to Mahesh Mittal in securing PHED tenders, followed by the receipt of a bribe amounting to Rs. 5.40 crores, as specifically stated in the second supplementary prosecution complaint at paragraph 10.70. 12. The charge sheet No.215/2023 filed against Mayalal Saini, Mahesh Mittal, Sanjay Badaya, and Piyush Goyal pertains to alleged offences under the of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, 'PC Act'). A conversation was recorded between Mayalal and an official from the PHED, during which Mayalal mentioned the names of Sanjay Badaya and Mahesh Joshi. 13. It is vigorously argued that the petitioner, through Sanjay Badaya, received various amounts: Rs. 7,50,000 from M/s. Mugdog Packaging India LLP Rs. 7,50,000 from M/s. Maxclenz Retail Pvt. Limited Rs. 10,00,000 from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce under the PC Act was registered against the co- accused namely Mahesh Mittal, Padam Chand Jain, Sanjay Badaya, and Piyush Jain-and that the Anti-Corruption Bureau ('ACB') subsequently filed a charge-sheet against them. 19. It is also contended that the summoning of the petitioner and filing of the complaint against him cannot be grounds to question the investigation conducted by the Agency. The Agency collected evidence against the petitioner and arrested him after proper verification. Therefore, mere delay in filing the complaint against the petitioner does not constitute a valid reason for granting him bail. 20. Additionally, the claim of parity is misplaced because the other co-accused, Sanjay Badaya and Piyush Jain, were granted bail by the hon'ble Supreme Court due to their prolonged custody and in consideration of the principles enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court also released the other co- accused, Mahesh Mittal, after determining that there was sufficient evidence to presume his involvement in the crime. However, the period of custody for these accused was extended, and the petitioner cannot be equated with the other accused since ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the strict requirements of Section 45 is essential to achieve the objectives of the PMLA. However, the constitutional court has the authority to grant bail to the accused under the PMLA in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution, provided that the facts and circumstances of the case warrants for the same. 25. The statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA are unequivocally admissible in court. Unlike provisions in some other laws, PMLA investigating officers are not classified as police officers. Therefore, the restrictions imposed by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which pertains to the admissibility of confessions made to police officers, do not apply to statements made under Section 50 of the PMLA. However, it is important to note that the evidential weight of these statements is typically weak and requires corroboration by additional evidence. 26. Statements made during custody under Section 50 of the PMLA require thorough scrutiny. They may be considered inadmissible against the accused if individuals are not properly informed of their rights. 27. The evidential value of a Section 50 statement is closely tied to the legality of the investigation. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to disprove the commission of the offence. 35. In summary, while statements under Section 50 of the PMLA are admissible as evidence, their impact in court is not absolute. The prosecution must provide corroborating evidence and demonstrate that the investigation followed legal protocols to effectively use these statements to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 36. In light of the aforementioned law, the court must examine whether the prosecution has provided sufficient evidence to establish, at first glance, that the petitioner, Mahesh Joshi, who was the then Minister of PHED, conspired with co-accused Sanjay Badaya. They allegedly collaborated with Mahesh Mittal and Padam Chand Jain to obtain a contract under the Jal Jeevan Mission. It is claimed that through his close associate Sanjay Badaya, Mahesh Joshi received a commission of Rs. 2.01 crores, which was subsequently concealed or misrepresented as untainted money. Allegations Against the Petitioner:- 37. Mahesh Joshi, during his tenure as the Minister of the PHED, allegedly colluded with co-accused Sanjay Badaya to facilitate the procurement of a contract under the Jal Jeevan Mission for co- accused Padam ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ily members, along with the accumulation of immovable property, which supports the conclusion that he received these funds from the main beneficiaries to illegally provide benefit to Padam Chand Jain and Mahesh Mittal. The prosecution has indicated that Rs. 1 crore was transferred to Sanjay Badaya by Mahesh Mittal. Furthermore, co-accused Piyush Jain, in his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, affirmed that a bribe of Rs. 5.40 crores was paid to Sanjay Badaya. [C] Petitioner's Role in the Alleged Offence and Receiving Rs.50 Lacs in His Son's Firm (M/S Sumanglam Private Limited) and accumulating Immovable property:- 45. To substantiate the claims, the investigating agency relies on a telephonic conversation involving Mayaram, an official of PHED who has been charged by the ACB for receiving bribes from Mahesh Mittal and Padam Chand Jain. The charge sheet submitted against the associated firms indicates that they procured tenders using fake certificates, which constitutes a scheduled offence under the PMLA. ANALYSIS:- 46. The financial flow involving placement, layering, and integration of funds has been illustrated in the complaint that traces the pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia LLP; Rs. 5 lakh through M/s Triumb Autocare Pvt. Ltd.; and Rs. 7.5 lakh through M/s Maxclenz Retail Pvt. Ltd. In his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA, he explicitly stated that his companies have no business relationship with M/s Sumangalam Landmark LLP and that he does not know the petitioner Mahesh Joshi or his son Rohit Joshi. He further indicated that the amounts were transferred at the direction of Himanshu Rawat. 50. Himanshu Rawat, a close associate of the petitioner, stated in his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA that he instructed Tanmay Goyal and Hemraj Gupta to provide bank entries to M/s Sumangalam Landmark LLP. He specifically noted that these entries were organised by him at the request of Mahesh Joshi and Sanjay Badaya. He made it clear that there was no agreement for the transfer of money, and no payments were made for these entries. When confronted with Himanshu Rawat's statements, the petitioner claimed that he had merely requested the transfer of money to Himanshu Rawat. 51. Additionally, the Investigating Agency examined the accounts maintained by M/s Sumangalam Landmark LLP and found that Rahul Joshi, who manages the firm, admitted to h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge-sheet filed against the petitioner in the predicate offence, claims of delays in the investigation process, the issuance of multiple notices before any formal prosecution, the failure to take action against other alleged culprits, retraction of statements by certain co-accused, and presented contradictions related to statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA. However, these claims do not effectively undermine the substantial and compelling evidence that connects the petitioner to the alleged criminal activities. Likewise, the arguments that the petitioner's case falls under the appended proviso of section 45(1) of the PMLA also lacks merit as the amount quantified as crime proceeds exceeds the threshold amount of one crore. Moreover, the proviso appended is discretionary & not mandatory. The Respondents' counsel mistakenly argues that the threshold limit specified in the appended proviso applies only to the Customs Act. However, even if we assume that the proceeds of crimes fall under this threshold limit, this Court does not find it appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. 57. The argument regarding the principle of equality claiming tha....