ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Full Bench)
BEFORE : SUSHIL HARKAULI, L.K. MOHAPATRA AND N.A. MOONIS, JJ.
SHIV KANT TRIPATHI .....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4909 of 2010, decided on 1st August, 2013)
(B) Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002—Sections 65, 45, 4 and 3—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 172(1), 172(2) and 2 (h)—Provisions of Section 65—Provide that provisions of Section 172 shall apply—It means that Directorate of Enforcement has to conduct investigation in offences under Act, 2002 and has to submit chargee-sheet if necessary material to proceed against accused is found—In case no such material is found, it has to file final report—Plea that Directorate of Enforcement is not required to file final report before Special Court, within meaning of Section 43—Not acceptable. [Paras 11, 12 and 14 to 20]
Hon’ble L.K. Mohapatra, J.—The prayers in this writ application are for a direction to the Enforcement Directorate (the respondent No. 4) to take up the investigation of Crime Case No. 458/09 registered for commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 13(I)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and Sections 3, 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Money-Laundering Act’) in police station Babu Purwa, District Kanpur Nagar, and for a direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Special Cell, Economic Offences Wing as also the Enforcement Directorate to submit such periodic reports as may be deemed fit and proper as to the stage, status and manner of investigation to this Court and to direct the Enforcement Directorate and the Special Cell of the Economic Offences Wing to complete the investigation in the aforesaid case in a time-bound manner within such period as may be deemed just and proper.
2. The limited issue before this Court for the present is as to whether the Enforcement Directorate is required to file the Final Form before the designated Court or not. But before deciding the issue raised in this writ application, it is necessary to refer to the brief history of the case.
3. The petitioner Shiv Kant Tripathi lodged an F.I.R. at P.S. Babu Purwa, District Kanpur Nagar, alleging commission of certain scheduled offences, certain offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as commission of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Money-Laundering Act. The said F.I.R. was lodged on 15.10.2009 and was registered as Crime Case No. 458 of 2009 in the said police station. The allegations in the F.I.R. related to the period when the respondent No. 7, Amar Singh was Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Development Council in the the year 2003. The substance of the allegations is that Amar Singh while holding the office of the Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Development Council, misused his official position and awarded various Government contracts worth thousands of crores to companies owned and controlled by him and he also received kickbacks in the form of commission. It was also alleged in the F.I.R. that Amar Singh indulged in Money-Laundering business by creating a web of shell companies. His wife was the major shareholder of M/s. Pankaja Arts & Credit Private Ltd. and M/s. Sarvottam Caps Ltd. It was further alleged that in all, there are 6 companies which were under the control of Amar Singh but at the same time they were not involved in any active business. As many as 41 companies merged with M/s. Pankaja Arts & Credit Private Ltd. and M/s. Sarvottam Caps Ltd. by orders of Kolkata High Court dated 31.12.2003 and 31.1.2005. Those 41 companies were shell companies with little or no business. Therefore, the amalgamation process was a deception and in the process of amalgamation, the companies in which Amar Singh had controlling shares were enriched by wealth of around 400 crores. Thus, he was in possession of wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income and misused his position by indulging in Money-Laundering business by conspiring with other Directors, officials and statutory authorities.
4. Amar Singh filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24225 of 2009 before this Court for quashing the above F.I.R.. The present writ petition was filed by the complainant Shiv Kant Tripathi for the relief mentioned in the beginning of the judgement. Both the writ petitions were heard by a Division Bench of this Court. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24225 of 2009 filed by Amar Singh was dismissed and so far as the present writ petition is concerned, keeping it pending for monitoring the investigation, the following direction was issued.
“In the above perspective we are of the view that regard being had to the various materials on record and also consid
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.