Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1640
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANT BIJAY SINGH, J.
Dharamveer Bhadoria - Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India, Ranchi - Opposite Party
A.B.A. No. 2812 of 2018
Decided On : 20-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, Advocate, Mr. Kumar Sourav Chatterjee, Advocate
For the Directorate Enforcement : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. P.P.
Headnote:
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 4/ 3 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 173 - Trial court - Anticipatory bail – Circumstances evidence - It is alleged in the charge-sheet that then Executive Engineer Road Construction Department entered into criminal conspiracy with Builders contracting firm Builders submitted false/bogus showing procurement of packed bitumen for the execution of the contractual works a warded in its f which caused wrongful gain to contracting firm and corresponding wrongful loss to the Government of Jharkhand. It is further alleged that the accused then Executive Engineer, in strict abuse of his official position, dishonestly and fraudulently certified the bills of the contracting firm for payment was released to contractor during relevant period, was the Managing Partner and holder of Power of Attorney of firm Builders – Held, In this regard it is stated that O.P has disrobed aforesaid facts and the same is contrary to record of the case application at page 54 evidently shows that O.P asked petitioner about the utilization of money received from R.C.D and petitioner vide his letter submitted the statement of utilization of the said money - It is humbly stated that the petitioner oat serial has specifically mentioned “Cost of Bitumen with carriage from HPCL go down to Hot Mix Plant where as O.P in its counter-affidavit has deliberately changed word “Cost of bitumen with carriage - It is humbly stated that the O.P being the agency of Central Government is not expected to mislead Court on facts of the case - That it has been contended by the O.P in the counter-affidavit that taken by the petitioner that he already got bitumen in his stock which he used for execution of the work stands falsified from the fact that petitioner had claimed and realized of cost of transportation of bitumen from HPCL go down to Hot mix Plant - In this regard it is stated that aforesaid statement of O.P in its counter-affidavit is factually wrong, denied and contrary to the record of case - It is humbly stated that Rs. is not the cost of transportation/carriage rather it is cost of including carriage charge - It is stated that when the petitioner had purchased the bitumen from HPCL go down and carried it to his hot-mix plant, besides cost of bitumen it must had incurred carriage cost as well - Petitioner vide its letter has simply given break up of amount received from said work to the Opposite Party - Further, it has been submitted by learned Enforcement Directorate that as per section 2 PMLA Proceeds of Crime, means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any persons as a result of criminal activity relating t a scheduled offences or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside country then the property equivalent in value held within the country - From the above definition it is amply clear that even through any property derived or obtained offence or value of any such property, that shall be the Proceeds of Crime - It is further stated that petitioner has not gone through Provisional Attachment Order as well as original complaint filed before Adjudicating Authority which are self-explanatory - On basis of aforesaid facts and circumstances petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail - Order accordingly
1. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case ECIR/06/PAT/2012/PMLA in which cognizance of offence has been taken under section 3 and under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by the Court of Sri A.K. Mishra No. 1, Spl. Judge, P.M.L. Act, Ranchi.
2. The case of prospection, in short, is that the complainant-Sri Subodh Kumar, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, lodged the complaint against the M/s Nav Nirman Builders represent through its partners and Dharamveer Bhadoria, Managing partner and Power of Attorney, holder of M/s Nav Nirman Builders as well as Director of the M/s Nav Nirman Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd (petitioner) under section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for commission of offence under section 3, Punishable under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 alleging therein that an FIR NO. RC-20A was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Ranchi on 22.10.2009 for violation of section 120B read with Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. and under section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against Shri Basudeo Tiwary, the then Executive Engineer, R.C.D, Chaibasa, M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Adityapur, Jamshedpur for criminal conspiracy, cheating forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine, a forged document and criminal misconduct.
Consequent to the result of investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in FIR No. RC-20(A)2009, a Final Report/Charge-sheet under section 173 of Cr.P.C has since been filed by C.B.I, ACB Ranchi on 03.12.2010 in the Court of learned Special Judge, (CBI), Ranchi against M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Shri Dharamveer Bhadoria ,partner in M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Shri Basudeo Tiwary the then Executive Engineer, RCD, Shri Ram Bilash Sahu the then Assistant Engineer RCD, Shri Arun Kumar Singh the then Junior Engineer, RCD, Shri Ram Bilash SAhu the then Assistant RCD, Shri Arun Kumar Singh the then Junior Engineer, RCD, Chaibasa under section 120B of IPC read with sections 13(2), r/w Section 13(1(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that Shri Basudeo Tiwary, the then Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department (RCD), Chaibasa, during the period 2006-07, entered into criminal conspiracy with M/s Nav Nirman Builders, the contracting firm M/s Nav NIrman Builders submitted false/bogus invices showing procurement of packed bitumen for the execution of the contractual works a warded in its f avour, which caused wrongful gain to the contracting firm and corresponding wrongful loss to the Government of Jharkhand. It is further alleged that the accused Shri Basudeo Tiwary, the then Executive Engineer, in strict abuse of his official position, dishonestly and fraudulently certified the bills of the contracting firm for payment of Rs. 89,68,966/- was released to the contractor. Dharamvier Bhadoria (petitioner) during the relevant period, was the Managing Partner and holder of Power of Attorney of firm M/s Nav Nirman Builders,
4. Investigation reveals that contractor firm M/s Nav Nirman Builders, had been issued one work order no. 150 (Anu) dated 2w3.02.2007 by aforesaid Basudeo Tiwary, the then Executive Engineer for Special repair work in Km 61,62, 63 & 64 (763 m) of Serakella-Chaibasa Road in Km 1 (150 m) 2(800m), 4(800m) & 5(150 m) of Chaibasa-Bypass Road. As per agreement, total 186.564 Mt of packed bitumen of Grade-60/70 was required to issue the authority letters in favour fo Government Oil Companies for allowing lifting of bitumen by the contractor, mentioning therein the quantity and grade of bitumen required for particular work. But accused Basru Tiwary, the then Executive Engineer conspired with M/s Nav Nirman Builders, and dishonestly did not issue any authority letter, addressed to the Oil Companies
