TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 869
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istered an FIR on 06.07.2022. It was involving offence by high ranking officers/officials of Delhi Jal Board ('DJB') and NBCC (India) Limited in association with M/s NKG Infrastructure Limited and its director(s). The FIR was registered for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After registration of the FIR, the ECIR was recorded by the respondent followed by its investigation. 3. The facts of the case originated from 15.12.2017 when DJB issued notice inviting tender (NIT No.-22) to seek Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning (SITC) of Electromagnetic flow meters, a project that included five years Operation and Maintenance Services. The deadline for submission of tender was 07.02.2018 when as many as six parties / companies participated on it. The integrity of the process was formally raised on 19.03.2018 when M/s Mechatronics Systems Pvt. Ltd. submitted a complaint challenging the technical qualifications of other bidders. The complaint specifically highlighted that M/s NKG Infrastructure Ltd. have been involved in the project under t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ittal, the then General Manager, NBCC (India) limited. These fraudulent documents were reportedly prepared at the instance of late Shri N.K. Garg, the then Director of M/s NKG Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant, Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal. 7. Shri Jagdish Kumar Arora, the then Chief Engineer, DJB played a pivotal role in enabling the irregular award despite a formal complaint being filed on 01.06.2018. Shri Jagidsh Kumar Arora allegedly disregarded all the information and eligibility of M/s NKG Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.. His action ensured not only grant of contract to M/s NKG Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. but subsequent departmental payments were processed without hindrance. Following the award, the work was sub-contracted to M/s Integral Screw Industries, a proprietorship firm of Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal. 8. The investigation identified Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal and Shri Tajinder Pal Singh a long-time associate of Shri Jagdish Kumar Arora for channelizing the illicit funds. Shri Tajinder Pal Singh was especially responsible for managing finances and assets of the Chief Engineer receiving bribe amounts and deploying them for the personal benefit. The amount of more than Rs. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Remarks 1. xx xx xx xx 2. Entire Third Floor, 1/3 undivided share in basement and 1/3 undivided share in the terrace at C-495, Defence Colony, New Delhi Anil Kumar Aggarwal and his wife Mrs. Poonam Aggarwal Registration No. 6.626 in book No. I Vol No. 797 dated 12.12.2018 (RUD-Vol. 5.4) 3,50,00,000 1,62,95,503 Equivalent value 3. xx xx xx xx 12. In the investigation, the witness of Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal confirmed that the technical claims made to secure DJB's contract was fraudulent. He testified that no work involving data transfer from servers to master control room ever occurred in Faridabad project site. He identified several discrepancies in the performance certificates dated 03.01.2018 and 12.03.2018 labelling them to be 'fake' because they claimed installation of 595 flow meters while only 286 flow meters were installed. He also noted that the actual completion date was 31.12.2017 contradicting the date 15.04.2015 as issued in the certificates but it remained incomplete. 13. Shri D.K. Mittal, another witness admitted for issuing signatures on performance certificate dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sband, Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal for a sum of Rs. 3.50 Crores. The joint property could not have been provisionally attached by the respondent when the appellant Ms. Poonam Aggarwal had no connection with the commission of crime and was not otherwise a recipient of the proceeds of crime. 17. Ld. Counsel for the appellants further, made challenge to the attachment of the property even in the hands of Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal. It was submitted that Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal has been booked for commission of crime, though no evidence was produced to connect him with the crime. Accordingly, the joint property of Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal and the appellant, Ms. Poonam Aggarwal could not have been attached. It is more so when the property of aforesaid was purchased prior to commission of crime and out of sale of another property. Thus, even the source was disclosed and therefore on the aforesaid ground also, a challenge to the attachment of the property in the hands of Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal was also made. The detailed arguments are specified. The argument to challenge the attachment of the property referring to M/s NKG Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was not raised as joint property of Shri ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Ms. Poonam Aggarwal has been provisionally attached, though, she has not been named as an accused and otherwise not the recipient of any money from her husband. The joint property was purchased out of sale of another property and the source to purchase the property was disclosed. 22. The argument aforesaid has been raised in ignorance of the order which clarifies that the property in the hands of Ms. Poonam Aggarwal is not under attachment. It was taken to be a defence on account of the joint ownership of the property under provisional attachment. It was even clarified by the respondent to the effect that the attachment of the property only to the extent of Rs. 1,62,95,503/- rounding off of Rs. 1.63 Crores. There was no need to attach the property from the share of Ms. Poonam Aggarwal. Ld. Counsel for the appellant yet made argument in ignorance of the reply filed by the respondent and even reference of it in the impugned order. The relevant part of the reply in reference to the claim of provisional attachment is quoted hereunder:- "......50% of the value of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- is Rs. 1,75,00,000/-. Therefore, amount of alleged proceeds of crime of Rs. 1,63,00,000/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of "property" as in Section 2(1)(v) is equally wide enough to encompass the value of the property of proceeds of crime. Such interpretation would further the legislative intent in recovery of the proceeds of crime and vesting it in the Central Government for effective prevention of money- laundering." 3.3. The aforesaid observations made by the Supreme Court enable this Bench to re-examine the entire issue, as in the considered opinion of this Bench, the judgment passed in Seema Garg's case (supra) is no longer a good law. This Court has taken this view due to the subsequent interpretation by the Supreme Court, which has superseded the legal principles established in Seema Garg's case (supra). 3.4. It is evident that the original (unamended) definition of phrase 'proceeds of crime' was structured into two distinct parts. The first part relates to the property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, whereas, the second part relates to the value of any such property where the proceeds of crime are not traceable. This clearly means that if the property derived or ob....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confiscate any other property of accused, which is of the same value as that of the 'proceeds of crime'. The second sub-category is a result of amendment brought in 2015 and 2019 in the Act. It provides that if the property derived or obtained from the proceeds of crime has already been taken out of the Country then the property equivalent in value held within the Country or abroad can be made liable to be attached. This position has been explained by the Delhi High Court in an elaborate manner in Axis Bank's case (supra) and Prakash Industries case (supra). 3.6. It is not disputed that the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary's case (supra) was examining the scope of the '2002 Act' including definition of phrase 'proceeds of crime'. The submission put forth by the learned counsel that the phrase 'or the value of any such property' is superfluous was rejected by the Court and it was held that the definition of 'proceeds of crime' is wide enough to not only include to the property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity related to a schedule offence but also any other property of equivalent value. 3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vana Dibbur's case (supra). This Bench has carefully read the aforesaid judgment. The aforementioned case involved attachment of property falling under the category of 'direct' or 'indirect' proceeds of crime. The complaint under Section 44-45 of 2002 Act was quashed by the Supreme Court. The Bench was never called upon to analyse the contentions based upon Section 2(i)(u) of 2002 Act, whereas, in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary's case (supra) the Court directly answered the aforesaid question. Hence, there is no substance in the first argument of learned counsel for petitioner". 24. In the light of the judgment referred to above, there was no illegality to attach the property for value equivalent to the proceeds of crime. However, it can be when the proceeds of crime is not found available or vanished by the recipient of the proceeds. 25. In view of the discussions made above, even the argument raised in reference to Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal and M/s NKG Infrastructure Ltd. to challenge the impugned order cannot be assailed. 26. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that so far as Ms. Poonam Aggarwal is concerned, she was not named as an accused because....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tune of Rs. 2,42,95,503/- in the same time when funds and from the same bank accounts wherein funds from DJB through M/s NKG Infrastructure were received by Integral Screw Industries Further M/s Integral Screw Industries had paid bribe through banking channel of Rs. 73.50 lakhs to entities associated with Tajinder Pal Singh on behalf of Jagdish Kumar Arora... Thus, funds to the tune of at least Rs. 4,26,45,503/-(Rs. 1.10 Crores + Rs. 2.42.95.503/- Rs. 73.50 lakhs) were not utilised for performance and execution of the DJB contract and out of this amount. funds to the tune of Rs. 2,63,50,000/- (Rs. 1.90 Crores in form of cash and Rs. 73.50 lakhs through banking channels) were paid as bribe for Jagdish Kumar Arora and Proceeds of Crime of R 1,62,95,503/- acquired and retained by Anil Kumar Aggarwal illegally in DJB contract of SITC of Electromagnetic Flowmeters at various sites of DJB. As per analysis of bank statements of M/s Integral Screw Industries and statements of Anil Kumar Aggarwal and employees of M/s Integral Screw Industries, the said PoC had been utilized by Anil Kumar Aggarwal for his own expenses and the same had been dissipated and hence deficient for the attachment. T....