TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r referred to as "the Society"), Vikasnagar. It was revealed that significant discrepancies exist in the account of the Society. Based on the findings, the Assistant District Registrar, Co-operative Societies issued an order on 07.09.2020 directing Shri Narendra Singh, Secretary of the Society to lodge an FIR at the concerned police station against appellant Smt. Bharti Devi. The FIR was accordingly lodged on 17.09.2020 for the offence under Section 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against Smt. Bharti Devi. The FIR disclosed misappropriated amount to be of Rs. 3,43,85,671/-. It was taken for the crime period of year 2015 to 2020. 3. On further investigation, it was found that the appellant Smt. Bharti Devi was involved in commission of offence for the period starting from the year 2010 till 2020. In fact, at the first instance, the offence was noticed for the period between 2015 to 2020. The investigation followed by charge sheet dated 22.05.2021 disclosed the modus operandi of the appellant Smt. Bharti Devi to commit offence. The following facts were revealed in the charge sheet: "(a) During the audit of the Multipurpose Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society, Vikasnaga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s later, on 22.03.2016. (b) On 26.04.2016, the Vistar Patal Branch, Barotiwala deposited cash of Rs. 14 lakhs into its account held with the Gramin Bachat Kendra, Vikasnagar. However, this deposit was not recorded in the cashbook of Gramin Bachat Kendra, Vikasnagar. (c) On 05.11.2016, the cash in hand of Gramin Bachat Kendra, Vikasnagar was reduced by Rs. 30,00,000/- by falsely showing it as an FDR (Fixed Deposit Receipt) in the cashbook, but no such FDR was created in the bank account of Gramin Bachat Kendra held with the District Cooperative Bank. (d) On 22.05.2017, Smt. Minty withdrew an amount of Rs. 3,000 from A/C No. 3057, but the accused recorded a payment of Rs. 3,500 in the cashbook. (e) On 19.07.2017, Shri Ghanshyam withdrew an amount of Rs 30,000/- No. 6548, but the accused recorded a payment of Rs. 40,000/- in the cashbook. (f) On 28.07.2017. Shri Basheer Ahmed withdrew an amount of Rs. 500 from A/C No 1573, but the accused recorded a payment of Rs. 5,000 in the cashbook. (g) On 04.06.2018. Smt. Mamta deposited an amount of Rs. 4,500/- in A/C No. 2419, but only Rs. 4,000/- was shown as deposited in the cashbook of Gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (c) An amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was withdrawn from A/C No. 419 of Shri Jeetendra Kumar without any withdrawal voucher. (d) An amount of Rs. 1,44,800/- was withdrawn from A/C No. 6381 of Mod. Akram on 17.07.2019 using a forged signature on the withdrawal voucher. (e) On the maturity of his Fixed Deposit, Shri Balendra filled out a transfer voucher for Rs. 2,82,361/- to transfer the maturity proceeds to his A/C No. 2181, but the maturity proceeds were falsely recorded as a cash withdrawal in the cashbook of Gramin Bachat Kendra, Vikasnagar, and the amount was not deposited into his account. (f) Thus, the accused Bharti Devi misappropriated funds of the society and the public amounting to Rs. 3,59,12,832/- through acts of cheating, forgery, and creating forged signatures and documents. 5. The amount of Rs. 1,75,69,577/- was an additional amount involved in commission of offence for the period starting from the year 2010 till 2015 and thereby total sum involved in the commission of crime was found to be of Rs. 5,34,82.409/-. It is for the entire period from the year 2010 to 2020. 6. The respondents caused investigation after recording the ECIR and fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the appellant Ravi Kumar further submitted that Ravi Kumar had taken loan for purchase of the property. It was purchased for a sum of Rs. 2.55 lakhs in the year 2010 but has been ignored by the respondents. When the appellant could disclose the source to purchase the property, it could not have been co-related with the crime. It was committed much subsequent to the purchase of the land. It is with further submission that the appellant Ravi Kumar got married with Suchita Rajput in the year 2014 thus her co-relation for receipt of the proceeds of crime is without any basis. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant Smt. Bharti Devi raised a common issue and submitted that the property under provisional attachment has not been acquired out of the proceeds of crime and, therefore, this Tribunal should cause interference in the impugned order. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants did not raise any other argument than referred to above despite an opportunity to raise any legal or factual issue. The counsel for the appellants disclosed their satisfaction to the issues raised and referred to above and thereby prayed for an appropriate order as they are having no other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Kendra Smt. Bharti Devi without his knowledge. Smt. Bharti Devi is none else but the mother of Ravi Kumar who, in his statement dated 02.08.2021, stated that his mother Smt. Bharti Devi gave him approx. Rs. 25 Lakhs, part of which was utilized to purchase the land situated in Prem Nagar and balance was utilized to build 12 Flats. In his further statement recorded on 24.06.2022, Ravi Kumar admitted that his mother gave him approx. Rs. 26 Lakhs for purchase of land and construction of flats thereon, out of which Rs. 6 Lakhs was utilized for purchase of land and remaining Rs. 20 Lakhs for construction of Flats. 16. Smt. Bharti Devi, in her statement recorded on 18.10.2022, made admission about passing of approx. Rs. 24 Lakhs to her son Ravi Kumar with further admission of financial assistance to her son from time to time. Accordingly, appellant Smt. Bharti Devi made admission about passing of money to her son Ravi Kumar of which no source has been disclosed. It was thus connected with the commission of crime and otherwise a huge amount of Rs. 76,15,200/- was deposited by the appellant in his bank account which was not out of the banking transaction but the cash deposit of which a....