TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1570
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....07.2009 passed by the Ld. Special Judge Vigilance, Ranchi under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Consequent to the above, a case was registered under the provision of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("PMLA") by the Directorate of Enforcement vide case no. ECIR/02/PAT/2009 dated 08.10.2009 for the commission of scheduled offence as per Paragraph-1 of part B, Paragraph-5 of part B and part C of the schedule to the PMLA. In this case Shri Madhu Koda and 8 other persons were arrayed as accused persons. 4. As per the said FIR, Shri Madhu Koda was elected from 54, Jagannathpur (ST) Assembly constituency in the year 2005 and held the office of Minister of Mines and Co-operative for the period of February, 2005 to September, 2006 and he was also the Chief Minister of Jharkhand State from September, 2006 to August, 2008. 5. A Public Interest Litigation petition (PIL) numbered as 4700 of 2008 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi by one Shri Durga Oraon alleging corrupt practices by Shri Madhu Koda and others. Another PIL was also filed by one Shri Aman Munda against S/Shri Madhu Koda, Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary, Binod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Property Amount Involved. Remark 1. Balance in Account No. 451110100007450 During check period Madhu Koda 35,082.000 2. Balance in TDR account No. 451145100001483 maintained with Bank of India, Gua Branch. 10.01.2009 Madhu Koda 2,99,587.82 3. Balance in TDR Account No. 451110100005980 maintained with Bank of India, Gua Branch. During check period Madhu Koda 480.00 4. Balance in TDR account No. 451145100005956 maintained with Bank of India, Gua Branch. During check period Madhu Koda 168.00 5. Balance in account No. 11637025169 maintained with SBI Jagannathpur Chaibasaa. During check period Madhu Koda 1,67,999.67 6. Balance in account No. 10923726881 maintained with Bank of India, Gua Branch. During check period Madhu Koda 14,40,823.25 7. Balance in TDR account No. 30155578505 maintained with SBI Branch Doranda Ranchi. 30.03.2007 Madhu Koda 77,315.00 8. Balance in TDR account No. 30155580161 maintained with SBI Branch Doranda Ranchi. 30.03.2007 Madhu Koda 77,315.00 9. Ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f India, Gua Ac No 5980 has been furnished. 13. With respect to the next amount Rs 168/- mentioned in column No 4 of the list of properties provisionally attached, it is submitted that on 01.04.2005, the amount was Rs. 177/- and it increased on account of interest. Since the account is non-operative, the bank levied charges and the amount got reduced to Rs 168/-. A copy of Bank Book of Bank of. India, Gua (A/c No.5956) has been submitted. 14. With respect to column No 5 of the list of properties provisionally attached, it is submitted that the opening balance on 1.4.2005 was Rs 43,130.92/-. On 18.6.2006, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was deposited out of available cash as per caşh book and, further, an amount of Rs 40,000/- was deposited on 22.7.2006 out of available cash as per cash book and further interest accrued thereon so that there was a balance of Rs. 1,67,999.67/- in the account. A true copy of Bank Book of State Bank of India Jaganathpur has been submitted. 15. That with respect to the amount mentioned in Column No. 6 of the list of properties provisionally attached, it is submitted that this is a salary account of respondent as MLA/Minister. The details of the sala....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts under attachment are proceeds of crime, no presumption can be drawn that the said accounts contain "Proceeds of Crime'. 21. It is also submitted that in so far as the allegation made in para IV of page 5 of the OC is concerned, in the said PIL WP PIL No 4700/2008, after thorough investigation, CBI submitted report before the Hon'ble High Court that as far as Income Tax assessment amount is concerned, no evidence is substantiated. 22. It is further contended that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has ignored the fact that there is no "reason to believe" in the present case to come to a conclusion that proceeds of crime generated by Shri Madhu Koda has been infused in the said assets; the learned Adjudicating Authority has not correctly understood the difference between the concepts of "reason to suspect" and "reason to believe"; the complainant simply relied on the allegations of the CBI without going through the actual facts and societal status of the Appellant and family of the Appellant; that the purchase of the said assets is made from the sources of income of the Appellant; that the Appellant and his family members had good income from the fertile agricultural lan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions by the appellant, attached the above-mentioned assets. 26. It is further contended that the Appellant herein categorically explained his sources of income in his statement u/s. 50 of PMLA and further gave proper explanation regarding the attached assets. However, the Respondent, without considering the same, attached the accounts of the present Appellant. Appellant also informed about the loans which he has taken from his family members which is also evident from his income tax returns however the same have totally been ignored. 27. It is claimed that the Appellant has purchased the said assets out of the income earned from legal sources. There is no evidence, either direct or indirect, on the basis of which it can be said that it was purchased from proceeds of crime. The attached properties of the Appellant are from legal sources and hence the said properties may be released and the present appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice. 28. The Appellant has further contended that the complainant has not been able to prove that the amounts present in the bank, which have been attached, are proceeds of crime. The burden of proving that they are proceeds of crime is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 21.05.2013. 33. The respondents submit that the confirmation order dated 25.03.2015 issued by the Adjudicating Authority against the Appellant under the provisions of the PMLA is well thought out, and well-reasoned. It is further pointed out that the State Vigilance as well as the CBI have filed their charge sheets against Sh. Madhu Koda for possessing disproportionate assets, and to date, 13 prosecution complaints have been filed on various dates, viz., 04.03.2011, 15.01.2011, 04.01.2010, 06.10.2010, 06.10.2010, 18.04.2011, 23.03.2013, 14.02.2018, 17.07.2018 (04 PCs) and 03.05.2019 against Sh. Madhu Koda and other accused persons linked to him for acquisition of proceeds of crime and offences as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002. Presently, trial is continuing against the appellant Sh. Madhu Koda. 34. It is submitted before us that the original complaint is based on the evidence gathered during the course of investigation which is also supported by the FIR registered by the Nigrani PS, Ranchi and the case of the CBI. 35. During the investigation, proceeds of crime as defined under section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, 2002, amounting to Rs. 27,37,167/- have been identified to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... properly explained in his income tax returns. 40. In this regard, the respondent submits that the aforesaid response of the Defendant is wholly misconceived and completely baseless and unsupported by any material. In particular, the Defendant has not filed any material to demonstrate that he had received gifts, as claimed. Furthermore, it is submitted that mere declaration of income in the Income Tax Returns of the Defendant does not automatically render the properties immune to provisional attachment under the Act. It is submitted that the purpose of Income Tax Returns is for computation of Income Tax payable and there is no bar on payment of income tax on income illegally earned by a person. It is submitted that the Income Tax Department is unconcerned with legality or otherwise of the income of an assessed and declaration of income in an Income Tax Return does not absolve a person from prosecution under Act and/or for criminal liability. In any event, in light of the Assessment Order dated 30.12.2011 passed by the Income Tax Department against the Defendant is demonstrative of the fact that the Income Tax Returns filed by the Defendant are incorrect and cannot lend any crede....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endant has not even made an attempt to demonstrate that he had sufficient sources of income apart from his salary as an MLA and, therefore, it is clear that his movable assets attached herein are disproportionate assets and therefore, are 'proceeds of crime' liable to be provisionally attached under the Act. ANALYSIS & FINDINGS. 48. We have given careful consideration to the material on record and also the rival submissions of the parties. At the very outset, we note that on the extent of proceeds of crime, i.e., disproportionate assets quantified in the hands of Sh. Madhu Koda, is to the tune of Rs. 1,40,10,333/-. As against this, the total value of assets attached by the Respondent Directorate is only Rs. 28,87,167/- (immovable properties valued at Rs. 1,50,000/- + balances in bank accounts Rs. 27,37,167/-). We also find that some of the accounts have negligible balances of Rs. 480/- and Rs. 168/-. In the SBI in Chaibasa, there is a balance of Rs. 5746/- which is also insignificant considering the order of magnitude of the alleged proceeds of crime in this group of cases. We further note that the present stage of proceedings against the appellant is that charge-sheet ha....