TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for offence under Section 406 and 420 IPC against Cell Group of Companies and its Directors in pursuance to the order of Jharkhand High Court dated 11.05.2015 passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.1635/2014 and connected Public Interest Litigation. The CBI filed charge sheet on 30.11.2019 before the court of SDJM-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI Cases Dhanbad for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 420 & 409 IPC and Sections 4, 5 and 6 read with Section 3 of Prize, Chits and Money Circulating Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1978'). The ECIR was then recorded on 31.03.2021 against Cell Group of Companies and its Directors for commission of offence under Section 3 of the Act of 2002, punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. 3. It was found that M/s Cell Industries Ltd. is a company registered with ROC, Kolkata on 22.11.2010 and later on another company M/s Cell Realcon Corporation Ltd. was registered with ROC Gwalior on 22.05.2012. The active Directors of the Company were Shri Rajesh Jaiswal, Shri Kumar Kanti Bhattacharya and Shri Sorav Bardhan. M/s Cell Industries Ltd. started its operations in and around Bokaro District of Jhar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceeds of crime and in the light of the undertaking, the Apex Court passed restraint order on his arrest. The said order was confirmed thereafter subject to fulfilment of the undertaking by Rajesh Jaiswal. He was granted bail by the Apex Court on the condition to deposit the balance amount of proceeds of crime before the AJC-cum- Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi in ECIR No.02/2022. In pursuance to the direction of the Apex Court, the balance amount was deposited with the court of Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi and in the light of the aforesaid, now the attachment of the property should not be continued. It would otherwise amount to the additional burden on the appellants in the light of the provisional attachment of the property worth of Rs. 4,42,04,307/-. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the property under attachment was not acquired out of the proceeds of crime. In fact, the property was acquired other than from the proceeds of crime and, therefore, it was not liable for attachment as it was not falling in the definition of proceeds of crime. The prayer was accordingly made to cause interference in the impugned order on the aforesaid ground also. 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entures and through various schemes viz. lucrative returns on Fixed Deposits and Recurring Deposits and for that Rs. 50-55 Crores were raised from public. It is with a further statement that money so collected was used for personal purposes apart from the other purposes by him along with Rajesh Jaiswal and Kumar Kanti Bhattacharya. In the light of the aforesaid facts, no case is made out in favour of the appellants so as to accept the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that a reference of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jaiswal has been given which has no application to the appeal preferred by M/s Cityscape Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Cell Industries Ltd. The order of the Apex Court is not on the appeal preferred by the appellant companies so as to be applied. It is with a further statement that if Rajesh Jaiswal had deposited the balance amount of the proceeds with the Special Court, it is in satisfaction of the undertaking before the Apex Court to save himself from the arrest and accordingly for anticipatory bail. The amount so deposited cannot be made liable for confiscation under Section 8(5) and 8(8) of the Act of 2002 in c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... first argument is in reference to accused Rajesh Jaiswal, who moved to the Apex Court for grant of anticipatory bail. It is with the undertaking of Shri Rajesh Jaiswal to deposit the balance amount of proceeds of crime with the Special Court, PMLA, Ranchi. The Apex Court initially noticed that despite the undertaking given in paragraph (iv) of the list of dates at page 'c', the amount has not been deposited but on the prayer of the counsel for Rajesh Jaiswal, further four weeks' time was given and accordingly the counsel for the appellants submitted that the amount in pursuance to the undertaking was deposited by Rajesh Jaiswal with the Special Court. The order of the Apex Court dated 03.02.2023 and other orders have been placed on record. The counsel for the respondents has contested the argument mainly in reference to the provisions of the Act of 2002 coupled with the fact that the order of the Apex Court is applicable on the Rajesh Jaiswal and not to the appellants who were not before the Apex Court. 14. We need to analyze the issue by taking into consideration the provisions of the Act of 2002 and the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jaiswal who is not appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvolved in money- laundering is not attached immediately under this Chapter, the non-attachment of the property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act. Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of one hundred and eighty days, the period during which the proceedings under this section is stayed by the High Court, shall be excluded and a further period not exceeding thirty days from the date of order of vacation of such stay order shall be counted. (2) The Director, or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director, shall, immediately after attachment under sub-section (1), forward a copy of the order, along with the material in his possession, referred to in that sub-section, to the Adjudicating Authority, in a sealed envelope, in the manner as may be prescribed and such Adjudicating Authority shall keep such order and material for such period as may be prescribed. (3) Every order of attachment made under sub-section (1) shall cease to have effect after the expiry of the period specified in that sub-section or on the date of an order made under 3[sub-section (3)] of section 8, whichever is earlier. (4) Noth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... property is claimed by a person, other than a person to whom the notice had been issued, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money-laundering. (3) Where the Adjudicating Authority decides under sub- section (2) that any property is involved in money- laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the attachment of the property made under subsection (1) of section 5 or retention of property or record seized or frozen under section 17 or section 18 and record a finding to that effect, whereupon such attachment or retention or freezing of the seized or frozen property] or record shall- (a) continue during 1[investigation for a period not exceeding [three hundred and sixty-five days] or] the pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under this Act before a court or under the corresponding law of any other country, before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction outside India, as the case may be; and (b) become final after an order of confiscation is passed under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of section 8 or section 58B or sub-section (2A) of section 60 by the Sp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ho may have suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of the offence of money laundering: Provided that the Special Court shall not consider such claim unless it is satisfied that the claimant has acted in good faith and has suffered the loss despite having taken all reasonable precautions and is not involved in the offence of money laundering: Provided further that the Special Court may, if it thinks fit, consider the claim of the claimant for the purposes of restoration of such properties during the trial of the case in such manner as may be prescribed". 16. The provisions quoted above allows attachment of the property if involved in the commission of crime of money laundering. It is to make it liable for confiscation subject to outcome of the Trial. Section 8(5) and 8(8) of the Act of 2002 makes it very specific that subject to the order in the trial, the property acquired out of the proceeds of crime can be confiscated. The purpose of confiscation of the property is to make good of the rights of the complainant who may have suffered in terms of crime. The confiscation of the property can be if it is acquired out of the proceeds of crime and subject to seizur....