AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- 2. Bank account deposit, A/c No. 29690100022191, Bank of Baroda, Indira Nagar, Lucknow Indra Pal Pandey (HUF) Vinod Kumar Pandey Rs. 2,72,363/- 3. Bank account deposit, A/c No. 29690100016732, Bank of Baroda, Indira Nagar, Lucknow Indra Pal Pandey Rs.38,234/- 4. Bank account deposit, A/c No. 29690100022136, Bank of Baroda, Indira Nagar, Lucknow Siddharth Pandey s/o I.P Pandey Rs.45,408/- Facts in Brief 2. The instant case pertains to fraudulent encashment and withdrawal of large amounts from the account of North Eastern Railways, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh on the basis of forged cheques of State Bank of India. North Eastern Railways, HQ- Gorakhpur, has various Units/Divisions viz. Head Quarters, NER (with 8 Sub- sections), Lucknow Division, Varanasi Division, Izzatnagar Workshop, Izzatnagar Division, Gorakhpur Workshop and FA & CAO (Construction). These Unit/Divisions are maintaining accounts with various banks such as Reserve Bank of India, SBI etc. for smooth operations of their accounts. For operation of these accounts, cheque books are printed by Government of India Security Press, Nasik which are sent to the various Railways offices i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od. 6. Enquiries under PMLA,2002 were initiated vide ECIR No. ECIR/02/VSI/2010 to identify and locate the proceeds of crime generated through fraudulent encashment of 19 forged SBI cheques. 7. During the course of enquiries, it was observed that immediately after fraudulent encashment of forged cheques almost entire amount used to be withdrawn in cash from the respective bank accounts and handed over to the accused persons. 8. Investigation revealed that Sh. Indra Pal Pandey (the appellant herein) was a tax consultant based in Lucknow and was keeping the signed cheque books of his clients for routing the money on their behalf. The Appellant was having cheques of three parties, namely, Sh. Laxmi Niwas Maurya Prop. of M/s S.M Engineers and Contractors, Mahinder Singh Prop. of M/s Thermo Dynamic Services and Amit Pandey, Director of M/s Bee Pee Electronics Pvt. Ltd. It was revealed that 03 forged cheques in the account of M/s S M Engineers and Contractor were deposited by Sh. I.P Pandey through his staff. It is revealed that Sh. I.P Pandey was given the above three cheques by Sh. Om Prakash Shukla. Sh. Om Prakash Shukla was known to Rakesh Kumar Mishra through a chain of pers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the appellant provided the appellant's version of the underlying facts of the case as follows: • That the Appellant who was practicing tax consultant, was approached by certain persons who were interested in executing railway contracts. Since they had no track record in undertaking Railway contracts, they persuaded the Appellant to request some of his clients (in his capacity as tax consultant) who had previously executed Railway contracts to obtain contracts in their own name, which, however, would actually be executed by the persons who had approached the appellant with the proposal; • The understanding between the appellant and the said persons was that once the payments for the contracts had been released by the Railways, the amount would be passed on to the persons who had actually executed the contracts. However, in this process, the appellant was to retain the amount of 20% towards his services as well as tax liabilities. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 13,73,000/- was retained by the Appellant out of a total payment of Rs. 1,68,00,000/- received through encashment of cheques; • It was, however, subsequently discovered that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich may result in frustrating any proceeding under PMLA,2002. The Appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of Dinesh Kumar Verma in FPA-PMLA-4156/JP/2021 dt. 27.05.2024 and Suma Sooraj in FPA-PMLA-3182/JP/2019 dt. 17.08.2023. Arguments on behalf of the Respondent 20. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent strongly contested the submissions on behalf of the Appellant. He referred to para no. 8.4 and 8.5 of the impugned order which reveals that all the persons were complicit in the encashment of forged cheques. He also referred to the statement of the appellant wherein he admitted that he got 7 SBI cheques encashed in the bank accounts of various parties and that out of the commission he received towards arrangement of accounts for encashment of forged cheques and subsequent withdrawals of money, he bought the house at 9/254 Indira Nagar, Lucknow and invested about Rs. 5,50,000/- in various accounts in Bank of Baroda, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. 21. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that prosecution complaint in this case was filed in 2016 when there was no time limit. 22. It was argued that reasons to believe under section 5(1) were specified in the Provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt or by whosoever they are held." [Emphasis supplied] 26. Therefore, the property in the hands of any person in possession of proceeds of crime can be attached even if he is not accused on the offence of money-laundering. This argument of the Appellant is accordingly, rejected. 27. The next contention of the appellant is that the purchase consideration of the house property which has been placed under attachment was Rs. 5,50,000/- only as reflected in the sale deed, and not Rs. 9,90,000/- adopted by the Respondent Directorate. In this regard, it is not denied by the appellant that the amount of Rs. 9,90,600/- adopted by the Directorate was based on the appellant's own statement under section 50 of the PMLA, 2002. Furthermore, it is evident from purchase documents that the consideration for the property was paid in cash. It is common knowledge that in purchase of properties, consideration, or at least a certain part thereof, changes hands in cash and in a majority of cases, the full value of consideration actually paid is not reflected in the registered documents. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the consideration initially admitted by the appellant in his state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in the Official Gazette, appoint." The relevant notification in this regard is GSR 383(E) dated 19.04.2018 and the amended clause came into effect on the date of publication of the notification, i.e., 19.04.2018. Accordingly, we are of the view that the respondent Directorate had 90 days from 19.04.2018 to file the prosecution complaint. As per appellants' own admission, the prosecution complaint in this case was filed on 16.07.2018. We find that counted from 19.04.2018, the said date was within the limitation period of 90 days." The prosecution Complaint in the present case having been filed in 2016, the issue of limitation raised by the appellant has no merit and is hereby rejected. 29. The next contention of the Appellant is that that reasons to believe were not supplied to him. Also, the property in question was already under seizure by the CBI and, therefore, there could not have been any reason for the Ld. AA to believe that the said property will be concealed, transferred, or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceeding under PMLA, 2002. The Appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of Dinesh Kumar Verma in FPA-PMLA- 4156/....