AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., a sister concern of M/s Renu Residency and thereafter the sale deed was executed on 17.11.2011. 2. As per the facts of the case, the Central Bureau of Investigation, EOU-IV, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as CBI], had registered FIR No.-RC-220-2012-E-0001 dated 02.01.2012 and RC-220-2012-E-0002 dated 18.01.2012 both under section 120-B IPC r/w 420, 465, 468 & 471 of IPC and also r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, and substantive offences thereunder against various accused persons. The FIR RC2202012E0001 dated 02-01-2012 was registered in the matter of irregularities in the utilization of Central Government Funds allocated to Construction & Design Services (C&DS), U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow for civil construction and up-gradation of 134 Hospitals in Uttar Pradesh under National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) Scheme in 2009-10. Similarly, the other FIR No: RC 220-2012-E-0002 dated 18.01.2012 was registered in the matter of irregularities in the utilization of Central Government Funds allotted to Uttar Pradesh Project Corporation Limited, (UPPCL) Lucknow, for civil construction and up-gradation of operation theatres of 40 Hospitals in Uttar Pradesh under National R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rket survey, for getting approval of the estimates by the Competent Authority. It was also revealed that the estimate of aforesaid 27 items was prepared and given by representative of M/s Surgicoin Mediquip Pvt. Ltd., to the officials of C&DS for approval. The rates of items in respect of other firms were collected in such a way that M/s Surgicoin may ultimately get the tender. In this manner, up gradation work for 114 and 20 hospitals was allotted to M/s Surgicoin Mediquip Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad and M/s Modern Interiors, Lucknow respectively. These two firms supplied the items at exorbitant rates to the extent of 5 times more than the existing market rates. These items were also below the standard in quality. A sum of Rs. 9.93 crores & 1.74 crores respectively were paid to M/s Surgicoin Mediquip Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Modern Interiors respectively for supplying these items; The above-mentioned accused persons, in connivance with each other by supplying/installing items for upgradation of 134 hospitals at an exorbitant rate, allegedly caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 5.36 crores (approx.) to the State Health Society, UP with regard to NRHM funds. II. The allegations levelled all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AC/Air Handling Units @ Rs. 45,16,560/- & Rs. 28,29,220/- each respectively in 36 hospitals, involving a total amount of Rs. 26,66,43,360/- was awarded to M/s Surgicoin Mediquip Pvt. Ltd by UPPCL. In this manner S/Shri Girish Malik/Manvendra Chadha/ Naresh Grover in connivance with aforesaid officials of UPPCL, allegedly caused wrongful loss to the extent of Rs. 25 Lakhs per hospital to the Government Exchequer. In pursuance of the conspiracy, an amount of Rs. 17,17,62,227/- was received by M/s Surgicoin Mediquip P. Ltd. for setting up of modular operation theatres as well as for AC/Air Handling Units awarded to them by UPPCL and an amount of Rs. 4.5 crores approximately, was reportedly paid to Shri Pradeep Shukla & aforesaid accused officials of UPPCL in lieu of getting undue favour from them. The above-mentioned accused persons, in connivance with each other, by supplying/installing items for upgradation and Air- conditioning of 36 hospitals at an exorbitant rate, allegedly caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 9 crores (approx) to the Government Exchequer from the funds received under NRHM. From the above said two FIRs, it appeared that 'Proceeds of Crime" i.e. t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ip P. Ltd (through its Director Shri Naresh Grover). The CBI quantified the loss to the tune of Rs. 6.02 Crores to the Government Exchequer due to the alleged irregularities/fraud. Thus, in respect of both FIRs/charge sheets, Shri R.P. Jaiswal was made as one of the accused persons. Shri Ram Prasad Jaiswal has been charged by CBI for commission of offences under section 120-B of IPC read with section 409,420, 468,471 of IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide supplementary charge sheet dated 31.05.2012. Shri Jaiswal has also been charged by CBI for commission of offences under section 120-B of IPC read with section 420, 468, 471 of IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide charge sheet dated 07.12.2012. The supplementary charge sheet filed by CBI in FIR No. RC2202012E001, CBI, EOU-IV, New Delhi dated 02-01-2012 revealed as under: (i) It was alleged that during 2009-10 M/s Surgicoin Mediquip Pvt. Ltd, Ghaziabad through its director along with other entered into criminal conspiracy with the illegal object to cheat NRHM fund in the matter of upgradation of 13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....485 7 6. M/s Mahakaleshwar Gyms and Fitness Pvt. Ltd. 2008-2010 1.240 9 7. M/s Renu Residency Pvt. Ltd. 2008-2011 13.960 36 8. M/s Renuka Agriland & Farm House Pvt. Ltd. 2010 0.980 11 Total 26.275 Thus, the allegation made by CBI in the above said FIRs and charge sheets indicated as under: (i) S/Shri Babu Singh Kushwaha, Ram Prasad Jaiswal received huge amounts as bribe from private persons/ companies such as Shri Naresh Grover, R. K. Singh, M/s Surgicoin Mediquip Pvt. Ltd; (ii) To accommodate the bribe amount/commission and their illegal profit, the suppliers of the material had supplied items at exorbitant rates to the extent of 5 times more than market price; (iii) Shri Naresh Grover of M/s Surgicoin paid crores of rupees to Public Servants, Babu Singh Kushwaha, Ram Prasad Jaiswal and other persons to bag contract under NRHM; (iv) S/Shri Babu Singh Kushwaha and Ram Prasad Jaiswal collected crores of rupees from various persons and suppliers. The bribe amount/commission so collected by Babu Singh Kushwaha and Ram Prasad Jaiswal were invested in various trusts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for conversion of black money into white money. e. He used to issue cheques and D.D. in favour of different persons such as Shri Surjeet Singh Thandi, Shivam Industries, Ram Prasad Jaiswal, Maithetics Engicon and Pankaj Singh on the direction of Shri R. P. Jaiswal. f. Shri R. P. Jaiswal got commission in NRHM scheme from various persons such as Shri Manvendra Chaddha (private person), Shri B, K. Chaudhary, M.D., Paccsfed, Ravinder Rai, G.M., UPPCL, Ashu Singh, Contractor, Raju Punjabi, R. K. Singh, Saurabh Jain who gave him Rs. 6 Crores, 3 Crores, 3 Crores, 1 Crore, 1 Crore, 50 Lakhs, 2 Crores respectively. Some other persons also gave him (Shri Ram Prasad Jaiswal) a sum of Rs. 12 Crores. g. The said amount of commission was given to various persons on the instructions of Shri R. P. Jaiswal and Shri Babu Singh, Kushwaha. h. He was introducer in various bank accounts of fake companies of Shri Ram. Prasad Jaiswal. i. He also gave money to a person namely Shri Anil Kumar on the instruction of Shri Ram Prasad Jaiswal. j. The said black money returned back to Shri Ram Prasad Jaiswal as white in the companies of Shri Ram Prasad Jaisw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the garb of share capital/premium. The name of such Kolkata based shell companies revealed during investigation 46 companies mentioned in the para 4.6 of the impugned order. The bank account statement reflected that huge amounts were received in the companies of the accused companies from the Kolkata based companies in the garb of investment as share capital/premium. Thereafter, huge cash was withdrawn from these accounts for purchasing the assets like land and construction of building etc. The scrutiny of documents further revealed frequent cash and high value cash transaction, which are not supported by any commercial activity, which clearly points towards the direction that these companies were mostly used for parking of funds unlawfully gained by Shri Ram Prasad Jaiswal. The total proceeds of crime received by the accused companies was evaluated as Rs. 2817 lakhs, out of which M/s Renu Residency Pvt. Ltd. received Rs. 1400 lakhs. During the investigation ED recorded the statements of the suspects and accused persons to check the trial of the proceeds of crime. On the basis of material on record it was concluded that M/s Renu Residency Pvt. Ltd. received total proceeds o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er dated 15.11.2011 by Hon'ble High Court of Adjudicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow for CBI investigation into alleged irregularities in NRHM Scheme, Shri Shyam Sunder Jaiswal Director M/s Shyam Ganga Realtors & Estate Ltd executed a fictitious sale deed of the said property in favour of M/s Mathetic Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow through its Director Shri Pankaj Singh vide deed no. 8786 dated 17.11.2011. Necessary enquiry was made from Sh. Pankaj Singh Director of M/s Mathetic Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow under Sec 50 of PMLA, 2002. In his statement dated 22-08-2014 he stated that his company was mainly executing contracts of M/s Renu Residency Pvt. Ltd, M/s Shyam Ganga Builders (P) Pvt. Ltd which are group companies of Shri Ram Prasad Jaiswal and all the dealings on behalf of these companies were done by Shri Shyam Sunder Jaiswal S/o Shri R. P. Jaiswal, who was also a director of M/s Shyam Ganga Realtors Pvt. Ltd. besides that of other group companies. He further stated that Shri Shyam Sunder Jaiswal proposed for execution of a sale deed of a residential plot in favour of Sh. Pankaj Singh, Director of M/s Mathetic Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow with a view to manage the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roperty with intent to mislead investigation and evade attachment of property under PMLA, 2002. During investigation, the asset purchased by Shyam Ganga Realtors and Estate Pvt. Ltd. (as detailed in para no.1 above) was found to be purchased from the proceeds of crime in the garb of share capital as under: - Name of the Company POC invested as Share from Kolkata Based Companies POC invested in M/s Renu Residency by Group Companies Net POC remaining with the companies Value of the assets identified as purchased out of POC Details of property liable to attachment 1 2 3 4 5 6 M/s Shyamganga Realtors & Estates (P) Ltd. Rs. 513 Lakhs Rs. 132 Lakhs Rs. 381 Lakhs Rs. 152 lakh + Rs. 10.64 stamp duty Khasara No. 127 SA, Kanchanpur, Matiyari, Lucknow Therefore, it is evident that Shyam Sundar Jaiswal Director of Shyam Ganga Realtors and Estates Pvt. Ltd. purchased the aforesaid property out of proceeds of crime and thereafter cleverly executed sale deed dated 17.11.2011 in favour of M/s Mathetics Engicon Pvt. Ltd. (herein appellant company), to mislead the investigation agency and to protect the said property for attachment. Accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fide purchaser and also the title holder of the property in question. It is further argued that the respondent and the Adjudicating Authority have failed to appreciate that the consideration payable was adjusted against the bills raised by the appellant on Renu Residency, and therefore, no notice was issued to the appellant company, nor any legal proceedings was initiated for payment of sale consideration. He pointed out that the appellant has sent letter/notice to the Renu Residency in respect of the dues pending against them. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority also failed to appreciate that the bills raised by the appellant against Renu Residency, for construction and consultancy charges, accrued before the date of registration of Sale Deed and this is more than sale consideration payable by the appellant. Further, the appellant is not in any way connected with the proceeds of crime, nor he has been named in the FIR, nor has been arrayed as an accused in the charge sheets filed by CBI. He stressed that the appellant is a bonafide purchaser and he does not have any knowledge of the property being purchased by the defendant No.3 from the proceeds of crime. Further, as per the allegatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant in respect of the consideration amount of the property purchased and the same was adjusted against the consideration of the amount. In this regard, he also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Sachar and Anr. v. M/s Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. etc. (2011) 9SCR 328, wherein it was held that if there are two sister concerns and there was an understanding between them and the vendor that in consideration of supply of goods to one sister concern, the other was to make the payment. The afore stated understanding was on the account of the fact that the Directors in both the afore stated companies were common and the afore stated companies were sister concerns. In the present case, the appellant has rendered services to M/s Renu Residency which he was very much aware to have the same management as M/s Shyam Ganga Realtors and hence he was left with no doubt about whether M/s Shyam Ganga Realtors had the power to make the agreement for the sale of property to him in lieu of his dues. Prayer is accordingly made to allow the present appeal, and thereby, set aside the order of confirmation dated 17.09.2024 passed by the Ld. Adjudicatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst the defendants. 7. Now coming to the second issue, it is not mandatory that prosecution complaint for commission of offence U/s 3 punishable U/s 4 of PMLA must be pending at the time of passing the PAO dated 17.09.2014. As per first Proviso to Section 5(1) of PMLA, the only requirement is the filing of police report or complaint case before the Trial Court for commission of predicate offence. In the present case two chargesheets to different FIRs were already filed by the CBI on 31.05.2012 & 07.12.2012 for the commission of predicate offence, when ED provisionally attached the property vide order dated 17.09.2014. Accordingly, issue no.2 is also decided against the appellant and in favour of respondent ED. 8. Now coming to the third issue, this issue is also decided agains the appellant company and in favour of respondent ED in the light of the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (27.07.2022) MANU/SC/0924/2022. The relevant text from the judgment is quoted hereunder: "65......... The sweep of Section 5(1) is not limited to the Accused named in the criminal activity rela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efendant No.3/vendor, even though the sale deed states the fact contrary to realty, as it is wrongly mentioned therein that the possession of the property has been handed over to the present appellant company. A perusal of the annual accounts annexed at page 2010-2011 of the reply show the figure of closing stock at Rs. 4,23,98,936.00 as per the Profit & Loss Account for the year ending 31.03.2012, whereas the figure of closing stock in the balance sheet as on 31.12.2012 i.e. on the same date is reflected as Rs. 3,83,98,936,00/-, which is an entirely different figure. This in itself is sufficient to show that the books of account of appellant company have been concocted and cooked up and no reliance can be placed upon the same, or on the authenticity of the details of closing stock annexed to the written submissions. The fabrication of the books of account is also evident from the closing for the stock as on 31.03.2011, as per the audited account of appellant company for the year ending 2011 as Rs. 4,95.77,820.00 (annexed at page 235 of the reply of appellant company) whereas the opening stock as on 01.04.2011 shown in the Profit and Loss Account statement for the year ending 31....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of this property by vendor. Moreover, even the purpose of the purchase of stamp paper is not mentioned therein. Thus, the very bonafide of the said agreement is questionable, even on this score. Thus, in fact three agreements have been filed with regard to the property in question, but neither of them have been acted upon. The sale deed dated 17.11.2011 is clearly a sham transaction, because neither consideration has been paid, nor possession has been parted with. The unregistered agreement dated 16.11.2011 is also a sham document because it not only contradicts the agreement dated 16.11.2011, but also purported adjustment with M/s Renu Residency Pvt. Ltd. has not been carried out as per the own records of the appellant company. The agreement dated 17.01.2012 is also a sham document because the appellant company was itself not in possession of the said property so that he could hand it over to another developer for construction of flats and in any case the consideration out of the said agreement has also not been passed, as the cheques reflected therein were never encashed by the vendor company. Thus, it is evident that the said agreements were created by the defendants to camoufl....