A person can be held responsible for money laundering if he either directly or indirectly attempts to indulge in or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

JUDGMENT :

Jay Sengupta, J.:

1. These are applications under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inter alia, praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.09.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Special (CBI) Court No. 1, Bichar Bhawan Calcutta in M.L. Case No. 02 of 2007 under Section 45 read with Section 3 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (State versus Gopinath Das and Ors.) and the impugned order dated 19.09.2018 passed by the said Court in ML Case No. 1 of 2007 under similar provisions, respectively, wherein the petitioner’s applications for discharge from the said cases were rejected. As common facts and questions of law were involved, the two revisions were taken up for hearing together.

2. Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted as follows. The genesis of the present case were the two letters of complaint lodged with the CBI, by the officials of the State Bank of India and the Oriental Bank of Commerce dated 23.05.2006 and 09.06.2006, respectively. It was alleged in the said letters of complaint that one Mr. Gopinath Das, the proprietor of M/s Hindustan International had allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy with some persons and in furtherance to the said conspiracy had prepared forged and fabricated documents were then submitted to the banks as a result of which a sum of Rs. 12,28,22,463/-was allegedly misappropriated from the State Bank of India and a sum of Rs. 6.76 crore was allegedly misappropriated from the Oriental Bank of Commerce. Subsequently, on the basis of the letters of complaint as above referred, a case was registered by the CBI, an investigation was carried out and ultimately a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judge, 3rd Special (CBI) Court, Calcutta against certain persons named therein. It would be pertinent to note that the present petitioner was not named in the letter of complaint, the formal FIR, nor in the charge-sheet. The Enforcement Directorate subsequently carried out a preliminary inquiry into the business affairs of the said M/s Hindustan International. It transpired that there was an agreement dated 17.03.2006 between the said Mr. Gopinath Das and the husband of the petitioner, Mr. Subrata Ghosh, by virtue of which the shares of a company known as the Dheklapara Tea Co. Ltd., were sold to the said Gopinath Das. The net sum of money was transferred to the Current Account of the husband of the petitioner, Mr. Subrata Ghosh. The said current account was in the name of Mr. Subrata Ghosh only and the petitioner had no connection with the same. It was not the case of the prosecution that the present petitioner received even a single penny in her account. It was not the case of the prosecution that the applicant knew the principal offender, Mr. Gopinath Das, who according to the case of the prosecution, had siphoned off the funds. Accordingly, the first part of Section 3 of the PMLA was clearly not applicable against her. The second part of the provisions of Section 3 spoke about the knowledge of committing the crime of money laundering of an accused person. Admittedly it was not the case of the prosecution that the applicant herein had any kind of knowledge regarding the alleged commission of the offence. It was the case of the prosecution that Mr. Gopinath Das has transferred a sum of Rs. 2.14 crore to the bank account of one Mr. Subrata Ghosh. Any further transaction from the said account by Mr. Subrata Ghosh, who was the solitary account holder of the current account would loose its character as a tainted money unless and until the knowledge of the beneficiary about the money being tainted was brought on record. It is the case of the prosecution that out of the money that was allegedly given by Mr. Gopinath Das to Mr. Subrata Ghosh, an amount of more than Rs. 2 lakhs, was given to the Union Bank of India, to foreclose the house building loan, which Mr. Subrata Ghosh availed for th