TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 seeks bail. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was the Managing Director of Surana Industries Ltd., (SIL). It had been stated that SIL is a public limited company involved in the manufacturing and trading of iron and steel products. It had proposed to construct a mega steel plant at Raichur in Karnataka. It had been stated that towards the project cost, loans had been sanctioned by various banks. But in April, 2013, when the project had just commenced, State Bank of India withdrew from the project. It had been stated that two audit reports had been prepared which certified that SIL had performed to the expected levels. It had also been stated that SIL had assets c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the petitioner had created shell companies for routing the finance and finally bringing it back as if they were contributions of the petitioner. 5. In the counter affidavit, it had been very specifically stated that there has been substantial loss caused to the banks and that the two audit reports which had been placed for consideration, have to be rejected. 6. Heard arguments advanced by Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. ARL. Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent. 7. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out the facts and stated that the petitioner had been suffering incarceration from July 2022 even though he had c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n intricate operation of misappropriating the said amounts. He granted contracts to companies which were controlled by him. He then also incorporated several shell companies. These companies were used for paper transactions. There was no actual movement of goods from anywhere to anywhere. The projects never started. All the amounts were systematically diverted from one shell company to another shell company. The total amount now outstanding in this case is Rs.1301.76 crores. 11. A perusal of the counter affidavit shows the intricate web created by the petitioner. He should never have complicated the issue to his disadvantage. 12. In 2023 SCC OnLine SC 645 [Y.Balaji Vs. Karthik Desari & Anr. Etc.,] the Hon'ble Supreme Court while e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny manner whatsoever." 96. If the main part of Section 3 is dissected with forensic precision, it will be clear that Section 3 addresses itself to three things (we may call them 3 'P's) namely, (i) person; (ii) process or activity; and (iii) product. Insofar as persons covered by Section 3 are concerned, they are, (i) those who directly or indirectly attempt to indulge; or (ii) those who knowingly assists; or (iii) those who are knowingly a party; or (iv) those who are actually involved. Insofar as process is concerned, the Section identifies six different activities, namely (i) concealment; (ii) possession; (iii) acquisition; (iv) use; (v) projecting; or (vi) claiming as untainted property, any one of which is sufficient to consti....