IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Sibal, J.
Parkash Gurbaxani - Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement - Respondent
C.R.M. (M) No. 12901 of 2021, 12459 of 2021
Decided On : 02-06-2021
Money Laundering - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3, 4 - Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 - Section 10, IPC Section 420 - The judgment discusses the grant of regular bail in a case involving allegations of money laundering under the PMLA, arising from a case registered under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and IPC Section 420. The court considered the applicability of Section 420 IPC to the case and the constitutional validity of Section 45(1) of the PMLA, ultimately granting bail to the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves allegations of breach of agreement/licence terms, fraudulent allotment of NPNL plots, and money laundering. The accused were prosecuted under Section 10 of the 1975 Act and Section 420 IPC. The petitioners sought bail citing completion of investigation, lack of influence on investigation, and health concerns due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigations were complete, the accused had cooperated, and the allegations were based on seized documents. It also considered the health concerns of the petitioners and the emergent situation due to the pandemic. The court granted bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.
Issues: The issues involved breach of agreement/licence terms, fraudulent allotment of NPNL plots, applicability of Section 420 IPC, and the constitutional validity of Section 45(1) of the PMLA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45(1) of the PMLA were unconstitutional and should be disregarded. It also considered the completion of investigations, cooperation of the accused, and the emergent situation due to the pandemic in granting bail to the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioners, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Gurugram, including deposit of passports and furnishing of heavy local sureties.
JUDGMENT
Deepak Sibal, J. - This order shall dispose of two petitions being CRM-M-12901 of 2021 - Parkash Gurbaxani vs. The Directorate of Enforcement and CRM- M-12459-2021 - Ashok Solomon vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement both of which have been filed for the grant of regular bail in case bearing No.ECIR/01/HIU/2019 dated 25.01.2019 registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short - the PMLA), arising out of FIR No.291 dated 13.12.2018 registered under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (for short - the 1975 Act) and Section 420 IPC at Police Station Bajghera, District Gurugram.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 31.03.2007, Chintels India Limited (for short - Chintels), which owned 149.093 acres of land in Gurugram, applied to the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana (for short - DTCP) for the grant of a licence under the 1975 Act for developing a residential colony. Thereafter, on 28.03.2008, Chintels and QVC Realty Company Limited (for short - QVC), the assignors of the aforesaid land, entered into an agreement with Sobha Limited (for short - Sobha) for developing the aforesaid land on a salable area sharing basis and in support of the aforesaid application for the grant of licence, filed such agreement before the DTCP. On favourable consideration of the application, on 22.11.2008, Chintels and DTCP entered into an agreement on the basis of which a licence bearing No.190/2008 dated 24.11.2008 was issued in favour of Chintels. As per the relevant term of the agreement, on which the licence was based, Chintels was required to reserve 25% of the developed residential plots on a 'No Profit No Loss' (for short - NPNL) basis. It was further agreed between the parties that 75% of the NPNL plots would be allotted to registered applicants through a draw of lots (if so required) and the remaining 25% would be allotted to Non Resident Indians against Foreign Exchange; land owners whose land had been purchased by Chintels for setting up the colony; plots falling in small pockets which subsequently are acquired by the colonizers as part of an area already developed as a colony by Chintels and to such persons whom Chintels may like at its discretion (provided that such allotment did not exceed 5% of the total number of NPNL plots).
3. Two other licences bearing Nos.58/2013 and 79/2014 for 3.947 acres and 13.375 acres respectively, which also contained similar terms with regard to reserving and allotting NPNL plots, were also obtained by Chintels.
4. On the strength of the licences obtained by Chintels and the collaboration/ development agreements between Chintels, Sobha and QVC, the land, which was covered under the licences and was situated in Sectors 106, 108 and 109, Gurugram, was started to be developed as a residential colony under the name of 'International City'.
5. On 10.12.2018 the DTCP wrote to the Station House Officer, Police Station village Bajghera, District Gurugram through which the police was informed that as per the agreement/ terms of the licence Chintels was required to reserve and allot 249 NPNL plots. However, it had been found that only 84 NPNL plots had been allotted and out of these 84 plots, 55 had been allotted by Sobha to Limited Liability Partnerships (for short - LLPs) created by Sobha itself. Thus, by allotting the NPNL plots to virtually itself, Sobha, Chintels and QVC had conspired to commit fraud as also had violated the terms of the licence/ agreement. Therefore, the police was requested to take penal action against Chintels, Sobha, QVC and the LLPs under Section 10 of the 1975 Act.
6. On the basis of the above complaint FIR No.291 under Section 420 IPC and Section 10 of the 1975 Act was registered at Police Station Bajghera, District Gurugram and after going through the aforesaid FIR, since the Enforcement Directorate (for short - ED) believed that an offence for laundering
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.