TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1742
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Anthony Paul Karakutty then supplied the semi-finished Ketamine to Jonathan Thom in Goa and to Ishratkhan Parmar in Vadodara. Jonathan Thorn, with the assistance from Jimmy Singh Sandhu, Sarpreet Singh, and Nguyen Man Cuong, processed the semi-finished Ketamine at M/s Vijay Industries in Goa to create the finished product. The finished Ketamine was subsequently supplied to Akshinder Singh Sodhi for export, who concealed it in herbal tea packets. 4. The semi-finished Ketamine sent to Ishratkhan Parmar was delivered to Mayur Sadrani, who then provided it to Devesh Purohit for processing at his factory, M/s Bliss Chem Tech, in Vadodara. After processing, the finished Ketamine was returned to Mayur Sadrani, who then supplied it back to Ishratkhan Parmar, Ishratkhan Parmar later distributed it to an individual named Ali, whose identity remains unknown. Jonathan Thorn assisted Jimmy Singh Sandhu in installing the necessary equipment at M/s Vijay Industries. 5. The factory was leased, and Jimmy Singh Sandhu enlisted the help of Sarpreet Singh to acquire the facility. Additionally, Sarpreet Singh played an active role in processing the semi-finished Ketamine into the finished product....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ducted through Hawala, which were corroborated by Arvind Patel's testimony before the DRI. 13. Akshinder Singh Sodhi operated as a drug supplier in India, as evidenced by the recovery of cocaine from his residence. He was actively seeking buyers for Ketamine and had been supplying samples of Ketamine to potential clients. A sample pouch containing Ketamine was recovered from his home. His communications with Jimmy Singh Sandhu, indicated by the numerous phone calls exchanged between them, confirm that he was following Jimmy Singh Sandhu's instructions. 14. Mayur Sadrani served as a conduit between Ishratkhan Parmar and Devesh Purohit, the owner of M/s Bliss Chem Tech. The semi-finished Ketamine received by Ishrat Khan Parmar from Anthony Paul Karakutty was processed through Mayur Sadrani. 15. Mayur Sadrani was the pivotal link between Ishratkhan Parmar and Devesh Purohit. Previously employed by Zakir Bhai, Mayur Sadrani switched allegiances after being offered a higher amount by Ishratkhan Parmar. 16. The offence under Sections 22,23 and 27A of the NDPS Act, 1985 was found and being a scheduled offence, the investigation was initiated by the respondents after re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hectare Agricultural land in Malwan and 1.51-hectare agricultural land in Malwan. Those properties were collectively referred to as "Subject Properties". The financial probe of the appellant Rahul Balakrishna Shedge was taken into consideration by the respondents which revealed that he worked as a pharmaceutical consultant providing consultancy services to various pharma companies. It was even to M/s Kusum Enterprises, a proprietorship firm engaged in the manufacture of intermediate pharmaceutical products. Prior to the arrest of Rahul Balakrishna Shedge in May, 2018, he received huge unexplained amount in his accounts and purchased the properties for Rs. 1.3 Crores despite his declared income not matching to the banking transactions. Between January, 2018 to May, 2018, the appellant received Rs. 61.95 lakhs from M/s Adroit Circuit Logix Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Gautam Samdani. It was claimed to be out of consulting services provided to Mr. Steve on anti-cancer drug Epirubin. The additional amount of Rs. 92.82 Lakhs was made in cash out of which a portion was transferred in the account of the appellant. 19. The reference of the facts about the acquisition of the amount by the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dge (D-1) & Nileesha Shedge (D-4) 22.06.2017 Yes No 54,00,000 Defendant 1 purchased property after receiving PoC Parking No.301 Vivanta Building bearing Bhandup West, Kurla Taluka, Mumbai 400 078. Rahul Balakrishna Shedge (D-1) & Nileesha Shedge (D-4) 14.07.2020 Yes No 4,50,000 Defendant 1 purchased property after receiving PoC Parking No.501 Kshitij Vivanta Building Bhandup West, Kurla Taluka, Mumbai 400 078. Rahul Balakrishna Shedge (D-1) & Nileesha Shedge (D-4) 14.07.2020 Yes No 4,50,000 Defendant 1 purchased property after receiving PoC 0.51 Hectare Agricultural Land in S. No.28/3 Trimbak Village Malvan Rahul Balakrishna Shedge (D-1) 07.05.2018 Yes No 1,81,000 Defendant 1 purchased property after receiving PoC 1.51 Acre in Trimbak, Gat no.250 & 680 Sindhdurg, Maharashtra Rahul Balakrishna Shedge (D-1) 03.07.2017 Yes No 2,66,000 Defendant 1 purchased property after receiving PoC Stack Parking 1 Kshitij Vivanta Building Bhandup West, Kurla Taluka, Mumbai 400 078. Nilesha Rahul Shedge (D-4) 25.02.2022 Yes No 2,55,000 Defendant purchased property after receiving P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of crime only if the proceeds of crime are situated outside India. This argument, in our opinion, is tenuous. For, the definition of "proceeds of crime" is wide enough to not only refer to the property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, but also of the value of any such property. If the property is taken or held outside the country, even in such a case, the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad can be proceeded with. The definition 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s namely tainted properties and untainted properties. The first part provides about the tainted properties derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Thereafter, the untainted properties are further divided into two parts; the first part deals with a situation where the property derived or obtained from 'proceeds of crime' is not traceable. In the aforesaid situation the competent authority is authorized to attach or 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 examini....