TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1072
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contested by the respondent leaving other respondents before the Adjudicating Authority and not before this Tribunal in these appeals. Brief facts of the case: 2. It is a case where an FIR was registered on 17.05.2018 by Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Jammu for offence under Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat, 2006 (pari-materia to Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988). It was also under Section 120-B of Ranbir Penal Code (pari-materia to Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860). It was alleged that various agencies of the State were indulged in commission of crime during the period 2012 to 2016. The authorities of District were found involved in the criminal practices in issuance of Arms license in lieu of monetary considerations. It is with the support of the many others and more specifically who are dealing with and involved in sale of arms. 3. In addition to the FIR lodged in reference to the allegations given above, the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and Special Operations Group, Rajasthan registered an FIR on 11.09.2017 for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 47....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom Smt. Anjana Bhargav which was received by her from her father, Shri Om Prakash Modi. The aforesaid is supported by the memorandum of gift and ITR of Shri Om Prakash Modi. The amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- was a personal saving of Shri Mukesh Bhargava and his wife Smt. Anjana Bhargav while Rs. 5,75,000/-was personal saving of Dr. Samridhi Bhargav and lastly Rs. 4,75,000/- was the personal savings of Shri Sambhav Bhargav, Advocate making total of Rs. 93,50,000/-. The disclosure aforesaid has been ignored by the Adjudicating Authority while allowing retention of the seized cash. 6. It is, further, submitted that no scheduled offence is made out against the appellants. The FIR was lodged for an offence under Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act but the allegation for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is not made out against the appellants. The appellants were involved in trade of arms which cannot be considered to be an offence and accordingly without there being a predicate offence, the respondent recorded the ECIR and caused Provisional Attachment Order. It is, further, submitted that the Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat, 2006 and Ranbir Penal Code are not reflected in the sc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndings of the Tribunal: 12. The fact narrated in the opening paras discloses about the registration of FIR for the offence under Section 3 and 25 the Arms Act and even under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat, 2006 and under Section 120-B of Ranbir Penal Code. The FIR was registered on 17.05.2018 and thereby the respondent recorded the ECIR on 13.03.2020 finding predicate offence and a case of money-laundering. The FIR was registered based on secret reports that the officers of the State are involved in the process to issue illegal gun and arm licenses which had become serious concerns to the security of the Jammu and Kashmir. The officers posted therein were even included an IAS Officer. 13. It is also a fact that FIR was registered even by the ATS and Special Operation Groups, Rajasthan on 11.09.2017 for the offence under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of IPC apart from Section 2, 25 and 29 of the Arms Act. A search was thereupon conducted and the investigation initiated. In the search, a sum of Rs. 93,50,000/- was found with the appellants and seized. The Adjudicating Authority has allowed to retain the amount finding a case against the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arrange arms licenses and even for its renewal. The aforesaid is reflected even in the bank statement submitted by the appellant. The entries in the bank statement show it to be "for Licence" and "Licence Fee" etc. This amply proves that the appellant was not only involved in sale of arms but was getting licence and its renewal and charging towards it and has been reflected in the bank statement. Thus, the case for commission of offence under Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act was made out because appellant was involved in trade of arms and for that they were getting illegal licence. It was to advance the trade of arms. The fact is fortified from the bank statement of various Firms of the appellant like M/s Mukesh Bhargav & Sons where entries disclosed receipt of the money from the defence personnel for getting armed licenses. The entries refer to "transfer for Arms License" and "for licence". 18. The statements of various defence personnel were also recorded under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 where they had admitted about getting arms licenses from the firms situated at Satwari chwok, Shaheed Chowk, Shiv Market, Kunjwani Bypass, Kalu Chak etc. in Jammu and paid the money which ....