2026 (4) TMI 758

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Act of 2002. Brief facts of the case: 2. It is a case where an FIR was registered by CBI, EOB, Kolkata on 29.01.2021 for an offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1980 on the basis of the complaint submitted by the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Sambalpur region. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the CBI finding a case of cheating and fraud by the main accused, M/s Bharat Integrated Social Welfare Agency (BISWA). It was for diversion of the loan meant for lending to Self Help Groups and joint liabilities groups by BISWA. The funds were utilized by the Chairman of the Company, Shri Khirod Chandra Mallick and others for their personal gains. Shri Khirod Chandra Mallick in conspiracy with Shri Pitabash Sethi defrauded the bank with dishonest intention. The amount of Rs. 2.74 Crores was utilized for repayment of other loans availed by BISWA and Rs. 2.47 Crores was utilized by Shri Khirod Chandra Mallick. The accused submitted fake utilization certificate for disbursement of loan amount in the account of BISWA due to which the bank ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ver, it has been taken to be proceeds of crime and accordingly freezing of the bank account has been continued without any reason. 11. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the appellant was only the Director of the company which was run by his father Shri Khirod Chandra Mallick. The appellant had no authority to enter into any transaction or even signatory of any document to get involved in the case. Without any nexus of appellant in commission of crime, his bank account has been frozen. 12. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that amount of Rs. 14 lakhs in one bank account and other amount in other bank accounts were out of the earning of the appellant from running a Gym and out of commission of LIC policies. It was wrongfully taken to be the proceeds of crime without any proof for transfer of money acquired by the appellant's father out of proceeds of crime. The freezing of the bank accounts and its continuance by the Adjudicating Authority is solely based on the presumption. 13. Ld. Counsel further submitted that when the appellant was having source of earning then there was no reason to continue the freezing of the bank account and it could not have been only....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Khirod Chandra Mallick and in which the appellant, Shri Debabrata Mallick was the common Director. The appellant was found to be key person involved in the affairs of BISWA and in possession of the documents/ records pertaining to the loan availed from various financial institutions. The data related to various self-help groups and joint liabilities groups to whom BISWA had extended loan was also found in possession of the appellant. The properties were acquired by Late Shri Khirod Chandra Mallick out of loan were also found with the appellant who was not otherwise having any legal source of income. 18. Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant was only the Director of the Company run by his father. He is not shown to be active in commission of crime or layering of proceeds, yet his bank accounts were frozen in ignorance of the fact that the appellant was having source to possess the amount. The sources were out of Gym and commission out of LIC policies. 19. I need to analyze the first issue. The allegation against the appellant is not only that he was the Director of the company involved in commission of crime but with other companies also where the proceeds was layered....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oups of BISWA were found with the appellant. It is, otherwise, settled law of the land that the allegations have to be defended by the accused by submitting sufficient evidence. It is as per Section 24 of the Act of 2002, which is quoted hereunder: 24. Burden of proof.-In any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime under this Act,- (a) in the case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering; and (b) in the case of any other person the Authority or Court, may presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money- laundering.] 22. The provision quoted above puts onus on the accused to bring evidence in defence in view of presumption about involvement of proceeds of crime. In the instant case, the appellant has failed to reverse the presumption and accordingly the respondent rightly frozen the bank accounts. The appellant failed to prove the source for securing lakhs of rupees in two bank accounts. Thus, reference of Section 24 of the Act of 2002 has been given for the reason that the Ld. Counsel for t....