Back
2023 Supreme(All) 669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI J.
Rajeev Ranjan Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow – Respondent
Criminal Revision Nos. 534, 536, 538, 543, 545, 546 of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Santosh Kumar Bhatt.
For the Respondent: Kuldeep Srivastava.
Headnote:
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 3, 4, 44, 45 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120 B, 420, 467, 468, 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13, (2), (1) (c) and (d) - Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 - Rule 3 - Misappropriated food-grains - Caused loss of subsidy - Several persons, in conspiracy with each other, misappropriated and diverted food grains meant for persons below poverty line, mid-day meal and Antyoday scheme - Held, Trial Court has ignored that minimum threshold for all cash transaction or any transaction is given as per Rule 3 is 10 Lakh is concerned, although Rs. 8,27,711/-. ground does not specify as to which set of Rules is being referred by petitioners, it appears that petitioner is referring to Rule 3 of Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005, which have been framed for regulating “maintenance of records of nature and value of transactions, procedure and manner of maintaining and time for furnishing of information and verification of records of identity of clients of banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries”- Court is of considered view that trial Court has rightly rejected application for discharges of petitioners and there appears to be no illegality in orders - Orders do not suffer from any such illegality as calls for interference of Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction – Revisions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI J.
1. The petitioners in the abovementioned 6 revisions are co-accused in a single case, bearing Case No. 357 of 2022 in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act)/C.B.I. Court No. 3, Lucknow, arising out of ECIR/05/LKZO/2017 (New Case No.) and ECIR/PMLA/VSZO/2011 (Old Case No.) under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’) and all the revisions have been filed against separate similar orders dated 25.04.2023 passed by the trial Court rejecting separate applications for discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) filed by the petitioners. All the revisions involve common questions and, therefore, the same are being decided by a common judgment.
2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Bhatt, the learned for the revisionist and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement.
3. It has been stated in the revisions that the same arise out of a case registered under an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Number 10503 (M/B) of 2009. Initially the case was investigated by S.I.T. of U.P. Police, but later it was transferred to C.B.I. under directions of this Court. The F.I.R. number RC0062010A0026/2010 lodged in Police Station CBI, ACB, Lucknow under Sections 120 B/420/467/468/471 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act states that during the period 2004 to 2006, several persons, in conspiracy with each other, misappropriated and diverted the food grains meant for persons below poverty line, mid-day meal and Antyoday scheme in Varanasi district. After investigation, the C.B.I. submitted a charge-sheet.
4. The charge-sheet states that Satendra Kumar Rai - the revisionist in Revision No. 543 of 2023, was the then Supply Inspector and he was the godown-in-charge of Harahua block during the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03. 2006. He misappropriated food-grains entrusted to him and thereby caused loss of subsidy to the government Exchequer to the tune of Rs. 8,27,711/-.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R. and the charge-sheet, the Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as ‘E.D.’) registered ECIR/06/PMLA/VSZO/2011, which was later renumbered as ECIR/05/LKZO/2017 and after carrying out investigation, it filed a complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA) against six persons, who are the petitioners in the six revisions.
6. The complaint states that Sri. Prakash Mishra, the petitioner in Revision No. 546 of 2023 was the godown in-charge of Harahua Block for the period 01.04.2004 to 16.07.2004. Jai Hind Maurya, the petitioner in Revision No. 536 of 2023 was the godown in-charge of Harahua Block for the period 17.07.2004 to 31.03.2005. Satendra Kumar Rai - the petitioner in Revision No. 543 of 2023, was working as Supply Inspector and he was the godown in-charge of Harahua block for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006.
7. The aforesaid Sri. Prakash Mishra, Jai Hind Maurya and Satendra Kumar Rai had made certain entries in the issue register, which were denied by the Kotedars (fair-price shop license holders).
8. The complaint states that subsidy loss caused by the accused persons by misappropriating huge quantities of food-grains by forging the signatures of Kotedars in the issue register during the tenure of Sri Prakash Mishra is 19,10,448/-, the subsidy loss caused by the Rs. 8,27,711/-. accused persons during the tenure of Jai Hind Maurya is 3,33,464/- Rs. 8,27,711/-. and the subsidy loss caused by the accused persons during the tenure of Satendra Kumar Rai is 9,71,108/- and the aforesaid accused Rs. 8,27,71/-. persons made corresponding financial gains.
9. The other co-accused persons, namely Rajeev Ranjan Srivastava - the petitioner in Revision No. 534 of 2023, Prem Shankar Singh - the petitioner in revision No. 538 of 2023 and Santosh Kumar Rastogi - the petitioner in Revision No. 545 of 2023
