Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
M/s Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Naveen Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India, Ranchi - Opposite Party
Cr. M. P. No. 3608 of 2022
Decided On : 27-02-2023
PMLA - Confiscation of Property - Section 8(7) - Section 8(8) - Section 24 - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 8(7) and Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the burden of proof under Section 24. It highlighted the legal presumption in the context of Section 24(b) of the 2002 Act and the reverse burden of proof against a person accused of an offence under Section 3.]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition for quashing the order allowing confiscation of property under Section 8(7) of the PMLA and dismissing the application for release of property under Section 8(8) in a money laundering case. The accused, Dharmveer Bhadoria, was involved in embezzlement and money laundering.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of Section 8(7) and Section 8(8) of the PMLA allowed for confiscation of property even in the event of the death of the accused. It emphasized the legal presumption and reverse burden of proof under Section 24(b) and held that the order of confiscation could not be set aside solely due to the death of the accused.
Issues: The key issues included the applicability of Section 8(7) and Section 8(8) of the PMLA in cases involving the death of the accused, the burden of proof under Section 24, and the legitimacy of the confiscation of property in money laundering cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the specific provisions of the PMLA, the legal presumption in the context of Section 24(b), and the reverse burden of proof against a person accused of an offence under Section 3. It emphasized that the order of confiscation could not be set aside solely due to the death of the accused.
Final Decision: The criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed, affirming the confiscation of the property under the PMLA.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.09.2022 by which the application of the Enforcement of Directorate under Section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred to PMLA) for confiscation of property has been allowed and the application of the petitioner under Section 8(8) of PMLA for release of property has been dismissed in ECIR No. 06/Pat/2009.
2. The prosecution complaint under Section 45 of PML Act in ECIR No. 06/Pat/2009 was filed on 13.03.2012 against the firm M/s Nav Nirman Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (A1) and Mr. Dharmveer Bhadoria (A2) (since dead) under Sections 3 and 4 of PML Act and also for confiscation of the provisionally attached property.
3. The order of confiscation was passed on account of death of main accused Dharmveer Bhadoria in ECIR No. 06/Pat/2009.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that FIR No. RC-20(A)/2009 was registered by the CBI, Ranchi on 22.10.2009 under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against Basudeo Tiwary, the then Executive Engineer, RCD, Chaibasa and M/s Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. for criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine, forged document and criminal misconduct.
5. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 03.12.2010 in the court of Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi against M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Mr. Dharmveer Bhadoria and others.
6. As offences under Section 120 B of IPC & Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act were scheduled offences under PMLA so ECIR No. 06/Pat/2009 was recorded on 13.03.2012 under the provision of the PML Act.
7. Enforcement of Directorate submitted the prosecution complaint after conducting the investigation on 31.03.2018 under Sections 3 and 4 of PML Act. It also recommended for confiscation of proceeds of crime under Section 5(8) of P.C. Act.
8. Prosecution case in brief with regard to the predicate offence is that M/s Nav Nirman Builders, had been issued work order no.150 (Anu) dated 23.2.2007 by Basudeo Tiwari, the then Executive Engineer for special repair work in Km 61,62,63 and 64 of Sarikela-Chaibasa Road subject to the condition that bitumen would be purchased from IOC/Hindustan Petroleum/ Bharat Petroleum. As per agreement, total 186.564 MT of packed bitumen of Grade 60/70, was required for execution of the aforesaid work, for which the Executive Engineer was required to issue ‘authority letter’ in favour of the Govt oil companies. It is alleged that Basudeo Tiwari in collusion with M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Jamshedpur did not issue any authority letter to the Oil Companies for the sale of the quantity and grade of packed bitumen to accused contractor M/s Nav Nirman Builders.
9. M/s Nav Nirman Builders did not procure any quantity of packed bitumen from any Govt. Oil Companies during the execution of work from 23.2.2007 to 29.4.2007 and got the bills passed without producing any invoices of bitumen, which were required as proof of procurement.
10. M/s Nav Nirman Builders submitted 37 invoices showing procurement of bitumen purportedly issued by Tata Nagar Depot of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) for the purpose of contract awarded to it vide Agreement No. 5F2 of 2006-07 for special repair work in Km. 61, 62, 63 and 64 (763 m) of Seraikella Chaibasa Bypass Road. Out of 37 invoices, 6 were not found to be issued by IOCL Depot, Tatanagar and it was alleged that these were forged and fabricated and had been dishonestly and fraudulently submitted by M/s Nav Nirman Builders. The then executive engineer, RCD, Chaibasa by abusing his official position certified the bills of the contractor on the basis of which payment of Rs.89,68,966/- was released to the said
AI
The legal presumption in the context of Section 24(b) of the PMLA and the reverse burden of proof against a person accused of an offence under Section 3 were central to the court's decision.
(1) Attachment and confiscation of property – Special Court cannot go into issues which higher forums have been entrusted with.(2) Section 8(7) and Section 8(8) of PMLA are stand-alone provisions – S....
Provisional attachment orders can be issued against those in possession of proceeds of crime, regardless of whether they are named as accused in the underlying criminal activity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
