AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Director, Public Works Department, Karjat, Raigad for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. It was alleged by Jitendra Ganjan Joshi that he approached the appellant Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek for putting hoardings on both sides of the Highway for advertisement of his hotel "ANTRA RESTRAUNT". He made an application for the aforesaid. The appellant Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek demanded Rs. 25,000/- for granting necessary permission. The amount aforesaid was not towards the license fee or to process the application but a bribe. 4. The complainant informed that he is working as Contractor. He met appellant Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek on number of occasions when he agreed to extend favour to the complainant to give works contract to him subject to payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Since the complainant was not interested to pay the bribe money, he approached ACB, Raigad and lodged the complaint against the accused. He negotiated the bribe amount to Rs. 20,000/- for putting hoardings. Appellant Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek was apprehended red handed while accepting the amount aforesaid. The ACB raided the of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....attached in ignorance of the fact that the said Flat was purchased by his brother out of his income and when he had permanently shifted to his native place, the Gift Deed was executed in favour of the appellant Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek but is taken to be the proceeds of crime in an erroneous manner. In fact, appellant's brother was a Contractor in the PWD and earned sufficient amount to acquire the Flat attached by the respondents taking it to be out of proceeds of crime. 9. The appellant has otherwise submitted payment details, registered agreements and other documents including Income Tax Returns, TDS for the Work Orders obtained from PWD by M/s Ankit Constructions. The work orders were directly obtained from PWD by Mr. Dilip Khatri who had extended sub-contract to various entities of family members of appellant Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek. The income generated out of the entities held by the family members of the appellant and used for purchase of property out of it has been erroneously taken to be the proceeds of crime. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the properties attached by the respondents were purchased by the appellant's wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be the property purchased out of the proceeds of crime. The aforesaid aspect has been ignored while passing the Provisional Attachment Order and its confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority. The prayer was accordingly made to cause interference in the impugned order. The counsel for the appellants had given details of the property in the hands of appellant Girish Kumar Chandrabhan Pareekh's son Ankit Pareek who was holding a Flat No. 202 purchased in the year 2008 for a consideration of Rs. 27.50 Lakhs while a shop was purchased in the year 2004 for a consideration of Rs. 8.77 Lakhs. Another Flat was purchased in the year 2008 for Rs. 7 lakhs. So far as the appellant's wife Vijaya Pareek is concerned, she acquired six properties and was disclosed on the Saral Form of 1996-97 and onwards. Therefore, none of the properties belonging to the son and wife could be termed to be proceeds of crime. The prayer was accordingly made to cause interference in the impugned order. 15. The counsel for the appellants did not raise any other argument despite an opportunity and called upon to argue any other legal or factual issue but the counsel restricted his arguments on the facts narrated ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income generated from the unexplained sources. The complainant has analysed the bank account statements of Mr. Pareek and his family members. The complainant has also examined the records/documents submitted by the appellant during the course of investigation which clearly shows that the properties were purchased out of the funds which is nothing but derived as a proceeds of crime. Defendant No.2- Mrs. Vijaya Girishkumar Pareek 21. She is the wife of the main accused and was in the receipts of proceeds of crime in her bank accounts and in the bank accounts of the firms/companies which were beneficially owned by her husband. From the proceeds of crime, she had acquired the immovable properties in her name and in the name of her firms/companies. For the source of purchase of properties in her name and her firms/companies, the complainant examined her bank account statements and it was found that payments to purchase the properties in her name were made from the bank accounts but there were multiple frequent credit entries through cheques and RTGS in the bank accounts. In order to ascertain the utilization of funds received in these accounts and reason of frequent credit entrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cheque payments was nothing but proceeds of crime. The transactions remained unexplained and claim of the appellant that cheque payments made from his family members account does not support the claim of genuine source. The firms/ companies that were incorporated in their names were created to layer the money in guise of business activities and business carried out by these entities was artificially created to declare in IT returns to evade from the clutches of the law. In fact, no business was carried out by these entities and revenue declared in returns was to project proceeds of crime as untainted. The purchase of the properties in their names is nothing but derived and purchased out of proceeds of crime generated by the main accused. The prayer was accordingly made to dismiss the appeals. Finding of the Tribunal: 23. The brief facts given in opening paras shows that the appellant Girish Kumar Chandrabhan Pareekh was caught red handed while accepting bribe for putting of hoardings on both sides of the Highway. The trap was conducted by the ACB on a complaint by one Jitendra Gajanan Joshi. That was the first part of the allegation otherwise he was found in possession of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come because the income was shown in the Income Tax Return but there was nothing to show the actual business undertaken by them. Therefore, the Income Tax Return and other documents were only to layer the proceeds of crime while no document was submitted to prove the actual business in those firms so as to generate actual income. The income was shown in Income Tax Return without actual working of the firms. The appellants have failed to prove actual business in the firms while filing the appeals. 27. The Adjudicating Authority has accordingly recorded finding that in absence of actual business, income was shown artificially to layer the proceeds of crime which was nothing but the bribe money in the hands of the appellant Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek. It is also a fact that the appellant Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek misappropriated his position and authority as a public servant and purchased the property in his name and the name of his wife and son out of the proceeds of crime. The frequent credit entries in the bank accounts remained unexplained despite the summons to the appellant Ankit Pareekh and Vijaya Pareek, they did not appear to explain it in the bank accounts and th....