Delhi District Court
Enforcement Directorate vs Shiv Murat Diwedi Anr on 19 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:03,
SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No. 6594/2016
ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010
CNR No. DLST01000211-2015
Enforcement Directorate Vs. (1) Shiv Murat Dwivedi &
(2) Praveen Kumar
19.11.2025
ID No. : 6594/2016
CNR No. DLST01000211-2015
Date of commission of offence : During the years 2001 to 2010
in and around Delhi.
Date of institution of the case : 01.04.2015
Name of the complainant : Sh. Swapan Bose, Assistant Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
(Prevention of Money Laundering
Act), Government of India, Delhi
Zonal Office, 10-A, Jam Nagar
House, Akbar Road,
New Delhi-110011.
Name of accused persons : 1. Shiv Murat Dwivedi
and addresses S/o Bachcha Lal Dwivedi
R/o C-120/1, Jawahar Park,
Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi.
2. Praveen Kumar
S/o Ram Narain,
R/o D-205/5, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi.
Offence complained of against : Under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002
Digitally signed
SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 1 by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2025.11.19
15:47:16 +0530
the accused persons as defined U/s 3 of the PMLA, 2002
Offence for which accused persons Under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002
were charged as defined U/s 3 of the PMLA, 2002
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 19.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that during the years 2001 to 2010 in and around Delhi, both the accused persons had committed offences punishable Under Sections 5,6 and 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 which at the relevant time were schedule offences as specified under Paragraph 4 of Part B of the Schedule attached to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and they had generated, derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, the proceeds of the crime.
1.1 It is further allegation that accused persons had also knowingly assisted each other in generating, deriving or obtaining the proceeds of the crime or knowingly became a party to such generating, deriving or obtaining such proceeds of crime and projected or claimed the same as untainted property.
1.2 It is further allegation that as per the investigation, during the said period of 2001 to 2010, the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi had deposited Rs. 90,74,132/- in his various bank accounts, had paid Life Insurance premiums against four insurance policies and had purchased a Honda City car bearing SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 2 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:47:29 +0530 registration no. DL-7CF 2115 in his name and had also purchased and constructed a house at C-1/120-1, Jawahar Park, Deoli Road, Khanpur, Delhi by investing the huge amount of proceeds of crime.
2. It is further alleged that during the said period of 2001 to 2010, the accused Praveen Kumar had deposited Rs. 36,54,759/- in his various bank accounts, paid Life Insurance premiums against two insurance policies and had purchased Honda Civic and Santro Car bearing registration no. DL-4CAA-0300 and DL-3C BP 0243 respectively in his name by investing huge amount of proceeds of crime.
3. On the completion of investigation, the complaint Ex. PW6/N, the present ECIR bearing no. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010 Under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 for the commission of offences as defined U/s 3 of the PMLA, 2002 and as punishable U/s 4 of the PMLA, 2002 ( as amended) was filed.
4. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, both the accused persons namely Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar were charged with respect to the offences punishable U/s 4 of the PMLA, 2002 as defined U/s 3 of the PMLA, 2002, vide order dated 14.05.2016, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses namely PW1 Sh. Dushyant Phogaat, PW2 Sh. Gurmeet Singh Kochar, PW3 Sh. Pankaj Singh, PW4 Sh. Hemant Gupta, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1 (1) IT Office, PW5 Retd. ACP Sh. Mehar Singh and PW6 Sh. Swapan Bose, Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, during the trial.
SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 3 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
PANDEY 2025.11.19 15:47:40 +0530
6. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of both the accused persons namely Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar were recorded U/s 351 of BNSS, 2023, in which all the incriminating evidence which came on the record were put to both the accused persons. Both the accused persons had denied the same and claimed that they are innocent and they were falsely implicated in the present case. They opted not to lead any defence evidence.
7. I have heard Ld. Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of ED and Sh. Chirag Jamwal, Ld. Counsel for accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Sh. Vikas Padora, Ld counsel for accused Parveen Kumar. I have also gone through the material available on record and the case law as relied upon by Ld counsel for both the parties.
8. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during trial. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are detailed as under:-
PUBLIC WITNESSES
9. PW-1 Sh. Dushyant Phogaat:- He is the witness regarding the tenanted house allegedly rented to the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi bearing H.No. 130, Humayunpur Village, New Delhi. He deposed that he had received summons from Enforcement Directorate in the year 2015 regarding statement about one person namely Shiv Murat Diwedi. He further deposed that he knew Shiv Murat Diwedi as he was his tenant at his house no. 130, Hamayunpur Village, New Delhi. He further deposed that this property consists five floors and each floor consists one flat SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 4 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:47:53 +0530 and all the flats were on rent at that point of time. He further deposed that accused Shiv Murat Diwedi had approached his grandfather through a broker for the tenancy of above-said flat in his presence and they gave said premises on rent for monthly rent of approximately Rs. 6000/-, though he did not remember it correctly.
9.1 He further deposed that the said tenancy had continued for 8-9 months and Shiv Murat Diwedi was staying at said flat and he only used to give the rent in cash. 9.2 He further deposed that through news channels, he had received information that Shiv Murat Diwedi was running a prostitution racket in the above premises and FIR was lodged in Saket Police Station. He further deposed that he had received a call from police station Saket and when he went there, the officer concerned informed him about the illegal activities, prostitution racket was being run in said premises.
9.3 He further deposed that when he went to see his flat, nobody was staying there and the lock was broken. He deposed that thereafter, he waited for few days but nobody came to the flat. He deposed that he had removed all the luggage from the flat and locked the premises.
9.4 He further deposed that he had seen the original statement written in his handwriting U/s 50 of PMLA. He further deposed that the statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded in his own handwriting and without any pressure.
9.5 During cross examination, he replied that Shiv Murat and Mr. Santosh had met him and his grand father Chaudhary Hari Chand for taking on the rent to the H.No. 130, Humanyunpur Village, New Delhi. He further replied that they SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 5 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:48:05 +0530 took first floor of the said premises on rent. He further replied that mostly Mr. Santosh Pandit Ji used to pay him rent. He replied that as far as he can recall, the rent fixed was approximately Rs. 5000/- per month. He voluntarily replied that although the rent was high but on account of the request his grand father gave them the premises at a lesser rent. He further replied that Mr Santosh Pandit Ji used to live there mostly but at times, he saw few more Pandit Ji. He replied that he had never seen accused Shiv Murat living at the said premises. 9.6 He further replied that Santosh Pandit Ji used to pay rent to him. He voluntarily replied that when Santosh Pandit Ji paid him advance rent, the accused Shiv Murat was present there. He replied that in the said premises lots of Pooja and Hawan used to be performed by Santosh Pandit Ji.
9.7 He replied that on the complaint of the other tenants, one of which was an elderly lady made complaint regarding loads of smoke (Dhuan) and Shankh (Konk) and Ghanti. He replied that on their complaint, he told Santosh Pandit Ji to do Pooja, Hawan only in the morning and not in the evening. He further replied that he had never seen the guests who had attended the Pooja/Hawan. He replied that he never received any complaint from any tenant regarding any unmarried women/girl visiting the said premises. He further replied that similarly, he did not receive any complaint whatsoever regarding any prostitution racket being run on the said premises. 9.8 He further replied that on 08.01.2020 before the Court, he made a statement that accused Shiv Murat was his tenant, did he voluntarily give the statement or under the pressure of ED to which he replied that on 08.01.2020, when he came to SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 6 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 15:48:14 +0530 the Court, 4-5 persons had met him outside the Court and had asked him to deposed against Shiv Murat Dwivedi. 9.9 The witness was put Court question that whether he had made any complaint to the Court or informed to the Court regarding the above noted aspect of 08.01.2020, to which he replied in negative.
9.10 He further replied that ED officials had called him once at their office near India Gate. He replied that he was asked by ED officials to give the statement against Shiv Murat Dwivedi when he had visited to the office of ED for inquiry by the ED. 9.11 He further replied that ED officials did not offer him any money, however, he was suggested that it was highlighted case at that time and his name would surface in the case if he would not give statement in particular manner. 9.12 He replied that Ex. PW1/A was in his handwriting and same bears his signature. He replied that he did not know the kind of language (English) as contained in Ex. PW1/A. He replied that the said statement was dictated by the ED officials. 9.13 The said witness was cross examined on behalf of the ED by Ld. Special PP for the ED and during cross examination, the witness replied that he had not made any complaint against the ED official before any authority. He replied that he had not informed the Court at any point of time about the aforesaid aspect.
9.14 He replied that he had not met any person related to accused after the aforesaid time. He denied the suggestion that he have been won over by the accused to depose statement in his favour before the Court.
9.15 He has not been cross examined on behalf of the SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 7 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:48:24 +0530 accused Praveen despite grant of opportunity.
10. PW-2 Sh. Gurmeet Singh:- He deposed that he had received a summon from the Enforcement Directorate in the year 2015 and he had appeared before Enforcement Directorate as per the direction. He had identified his statement dated 12.03.2015 U/s 50 of PMLA.2002 and he states that same was written in his own handwriting and bearing his signature on every page at point A and he had identified the same as Ex. PW2/A. He had identified the copy of his own Voter ID Card on record as Ex. PW2/B. 10.1 He further deposed that in the statement he had stated that the premises O-5, C.R Park, New Delhi belongs to him and same was given on lease to Parveen Kumar for the purpose of personal use as his mother was old and lives in Gurgaon so she would be staying at the premises and he would be visiting her. He further deposed that his other family members would used to stay.
10.2 He deposed that in the year 2010, he had received a call from police (Crime Branch) that they want to inspect the said property in regard to some offence. He further deposed that he gave no objection and the police had inspected the premises and found that in the premises, the prostitution racket was going on. He further deposed that the police had taken the premises in their own custody for the purpose of investigation and after completion of the investigation, the property was handed over to him.
10.3 He further deposed that when the property was handed over to him, he had inspected the property and inquired from the neighbours, they informed him that it was correct that the prostitution racket was running in the premises and many SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 8 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:48:50 +0530 young girls and other visitors used to comes in odd hours. He had identified the original lease deed dated 01.09.2009 from the judicial file of FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket. He further deposed that the lease deed was signed by his father late Sh. Dalip Singh in favour of Parveen Kumar and same was exhibited in the judicial file of schedule offence as Ex. PW29/A. 10.4 He further deposed that he could identify the accused Parveen Kumar if shown to him. However, during his examination, the witness did not identity the accused Parveen Kumar as the same person who was rented with the premises bearing no. O-5, C.R Park, New Delhi.
10.5 He has not been cross examined on behalf of both the accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
11. PW-3 Sh. Pankaj Singh :- He was the IO of the case FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket registered U/s 4/5/8 of ITP Act, however, the said witness was expired during the trial after his part examination and the ED had examined retd. ACP Sh. Mehar Singh in place of said witness retd. ACP Pankaj Singh.
12. PW-4 Sh. Hemant Gupta Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1:- He deposed that he had worked in Enforcement Directorate as Deputy Director from November 2013 to September 2015. He further deposed that in the present case, since schedule offences were found to be committed by both the accused persons, Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered by the office of Enforcement Directorate. 12.1 He further deposed that subsequently, inquiries were conducted by the office and statement of various persons were recorded. He further deposed that documents were also obtained from the Income Tax Department, banks etc. which were also SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 9 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:48:58 +0530 examined in detail. He further deposed that as the accused persons were found to have committed offence under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (as amended) (PMLA), after inquiries, the Provisional Attachment order (PAO) was issued by him.
12.2 During his examination, the witness had identified the Provisional Attachment Order D-28 as PW4/P-1 and he had also identified his signature on the said document. 12.3 During cross examination made on behalf of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, he replied that Section 5,6, & 8 of Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act are scheduled offences for PMLA based on which the matter was investigated. He further replied that he did not remember Section 5,6, & 8 of Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act.
12.4 He further replied that he did not conduct any personal inquiries with accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and he did not record any statement of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He further replied that he did not record any statement of any other person during the above noted proceedings in the present case. He further replied that he did not personally summon any document from the IT Department, bank or any other authority. 12.5 He further replied that there was a notification as per which the Deputy Director was authorised to issue the PAO. He further replied that as of now, he is unable to recall the number or date of the notification. He voluntarily replied that same was mentioned in the PAO.
12.6 He replied that he did not remember if he had obtained any sanction prior to issuance of PAO against accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He voluntarily replied that he did not recall SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 10 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:49:05 +0530 if any sanction was required before such issuance and in case it was required, the same would have been obtained and would be part of the record.
12.7 He further replied that ECIR was registered on the basis of one case registered by Delhi Police under ITP Act, however, during the course of inquiries by the ED, it was found that there were other cases also registered against the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi which have been mentioned in the PAO. 12.8 He further replied that he did not recall the FIR number or police station details of the case of Delhi Police under ITP Act and the same had been mentioned in the PAO. He further replied that he did not recall the details of other cases, however, the same had also been mentioned in the PAO. He replied that perhaps, there were three-four more cases registered against accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi but he was not sure about the exact number of the same. He replied that he cannot recall the nature of offences in the other FIRs.
12.9 He voluntarily replied that the same have been mentioned in the PAO. He replied that he cannot say if the other cases against accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi pertained only to Delhi or other States as well. He replied that he cannot say if chargesheet were filed in the abovesaid three-four more cases before the competent authority. He voluntarily replied that the same have been mentioned in the PAO. He replied that the chargesheet was filed in the main case.
12.10 He replied that he was aware about the facts of the main case based on which instant case was registered by ED. He further replied that as far as he recall, the FIR was registered in the year 2010, however, he did not remember the date and month SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 11 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:49:26 +0530 of the same. He further replied that as far as he recall, apart from the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, there were other accused persons also namely Praveen Kumar and six ladies namely Shalini Gautam, Raina, Ashu and the name of remaining ladies, he did not remember ( to the best of his memory). 12.11 He further replied that the IO of the case submitted before him two statements of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He further replied that he did not remember the date of said statements. He replied that as far as he remember, one statement was recorded in the ED office and about the other statement, he did not recall whether it was recorded either in JC or ED office. 12.12 He denied the suggestion that three statements of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi were recorded and not two. He voluntarily replied that in respect of one statement in JC, the accused refused to give the statement in absence of his lawyer. 12.13 He further replied that the statement recorded at the ED office was not in his presence. He replied that he was not aware if the said statement recorded in the ED office was in the presence of merely the IO or any other person from the department or otherwise.
12.14 He further replied that there were six bank accounts, one vehicle and three insurance policies with one immovable property in the name of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi which were attached as per PAO. He replied that he did not remember the name of any of the six banks mentioned above. He further replied that vehicle was make of Honda City, however, he did not remember the registration number of the same. 12.15 He further replied that he did not remember the name and details of insurance policies. He further replied that as SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 12 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:49:36 +0530 far as he remember immovable property was in Jawahar Park, Delhi. He further replied that he did not remember the place or locality where Jawahar Park was situated. He replied that before issuing PAO, he had considered the title document of the said immovable property. He denied the suggestion that he did not consider any title document of the said immovable property. 12.16 He replied that in all the six bank accounts, there were remaining balance between Rs. 1-2 lakh in total. He replied that the property at Jawahar Park was valued between Rs. 50-60 lakh by the valuer.
12.17 He replied that he did not remember the exact detail and nature of the title documents of the Jawahar Park property. He replied that he did not remember that whether the Honda City car was a pre-owned vehicle or a new vehicle bought by the accused. He replied that there were four insurance policies in the name of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He further replied that he did not remember the amount of premium of any of the insurance policies in the name of accused Shiv Murati Dwivedi. He replied that he did not know the measurement of the Jawahar Park Property. He replied that he did not remember if the said property was single or multi storied.
12.18 He replied that he did not remember if any photographs pertaining to the Jawahar Park property were put by the IO before him. He further replied that he did not remember the date on which the IO had put before him the valuation report pertaining to the Jawahar Park property. He replied that he did not remember if any investigation was done pertaining to the statement of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi that he derives agricultural income. He further replied that same was his answer SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 13 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 15:49:52 +0530 pertaining to the statement of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi that he derives income from performing religious ceremonies. 12.19 The witness was put question that please name the members of alleged crime syndicate of which the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was part of to which he replied that the same has been answered in his last statement recorded before the Court. 12.20 He denied the suggestion that he had failed to show any crime syndicate in which accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was the member of.
12.21 He replied that from 'luxury cars' he mean Honda City car only recovered from accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He further replied that he did not remember if the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi had any servants. He further replied that he did not remember if the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi lived in his own house or in the rented premises. He replied that he cannot say exactly if accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi had taken any accommodation on rent.
12.22 He denied the suggestion that in the purchase of the house i.e. C-120/1, Jawahar Park, the accused merely spent Rs. 3,25,000/-. He further denied the suggestion that the money found in the bank was merely the saving of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi earned out of agricultural income and income from performing religious ceremonies. He further denied the suggestion that the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi has been wrongly implicated in the present matter. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
12.23 During cross examination made on behalf of accused Parveen, he denied the suggestion that he had passed Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015 without application of mind SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 14 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 15:50:02 +0530 and without scrutinizing the material and evidences produced before him. He denied the suggestion that Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015 was arbitrary, unlawful and malafide in nature.
12.24 He replied that Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was the most primary and basic document for the initiation of cases under PMLA.
12.25 He replied that in Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015 Ex. PW4/1 does not mention that ECIR/ 53/2010 was produced before him for perusal and scrutiny before passing the Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015. He deposed that ECIR/53/2010 was not mentioned from point A to A in Ex. PW4/1 at page 1 of Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015. He voluntarily replied that ECIR was shown to him may be it was not mentioned in the list of documents from point A to A, though details of ECIR number have been duly mentioned.
12.26 He replied that he had knowledge about the cases pending against accused Parveen in 2010 i.e. prior to registration of present ECIR/53/2010.
12.27 He replied that he did not remember if only FIR No. 47/2010, PS Saket and FIR No. 54/2010, PS Saket which was arising out of FIR No. 47/2010 being case under MCOCA was the only pending case against Parveen when present ECIR was registered.
12.28 He replied that he did not remember if accused Parveen was a co accused of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi in five cases pending against him. He replied that accused Parveen was not shown as a co accused with Shiv Murat Dwivedi in list of SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 15 RAVINDRA Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:50:12 +0530 five cases on page 5 to 7 of Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015 from point B to B. 12.29 He replied that he did not remember if the cognizance was taken by the concerned Courts in FIR No. 47/2010, PS Saket and FIR No. 54/2010, PS Saket when the present ECIR was recorded in 2010.
12.30 The witness was put question that what is the date when present ECIR was recorded by Enforcement Directorate to which he replied that he did not remember the date. 12.31 He replied that he had seen the ECIR in the judicial record. He further replied that there were six females accused persons listed in the said ECIR dated 15.03.2010 apart from accused Parveen and Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He replied that IO Mr. Swapan Bose did not produce any details of assets of above mentioned six female accused before him. He replied that the entire record of investigation by Mr. Swapan Bose till the time of Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015 was produced before him. He replied that there was no property or asset details of above mentioned six female accused persons in the said record. He replied that he did not know if Mr. Swapan Bose had investigated the present ECIR against above stated six female accused persons or not pertaining to their property and assets. 12.32 He denied the suggestion that present attachment order dated 28.03.2015 was passed in a malafide manner only against two accused persons without any justifiable reason for not proceeding against other six female accused persons. 12.33 He further denied the suggestion that he had passed Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015 only on the basis of investigation conducted by PS Saket in FIR No. 47/2010 and SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 16 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:50:41 +0530 FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket. He voluntarily replied that he had also considered the investigation conducted by Enforcement Directorate.
12.34 The witness was put question that what evidences and investigation material was placed before him which was done by IO, except recording statement of accused Parveen to which he replied that he had replied this answer previously as already mentioned in document Ex. PW4/1 from point A to A. 12.35 He replied that he had checked the documents pertaining to the assets of accused Parveen before passing Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015. He further replied that he had knowledge that the offences under Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act was a schedule offence under Part-B of Schedule 1 of PML Act. He replied that he did not remember if the property/assets shown attached in his Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015 were already seized/attached in FIR No. 47/2010, PS Saket and FIR No. 54/2010, PS Saket. 12.36 He denied the suggestion that he had passed Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015 without properly scrutinizing the asset details and their present status at the time of passing Provisional Order dated 28.03.2015. 12.37 He replied that the residual amount of seven bank accounts of accused Parveen was only Rs. 1 Lakh (approximately). He further replied that the value of the two cars i.e. Santro and Honda Civic was approximately Rs. 2.5 lakh and Rs. 6.5 lakh. He replied that he had also attached two policies pertaining to LIC qua accused Parveen. He further replied that he did not know if the said policies as attached were said to have expired on 2010.
SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 17 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:50:53 +0530 12.38 The witness was asked question that he had passed Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015, although the total value of the assets were not above Rs. 30 lakh as required by PMLA for the offence being in Part-B in schedule to which he replied that as per provisions of Section 2 (y) of the PMLA, schedule offence means (ii) the offences specified under part B of the Schedule, if the total value involved in such offences was Rs. 30 lakh or more. He replied that this being the criteria , fulfilled in this case, he had passed the Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015.
12.39 He replied that while passing Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015, he had seen and considered the table showing cash deposits in the bank account of accused persons.
12.40 He replied that he did not know who had paid those cash amounts to accused Parveen. He further replied that he did not ask IO as to where all the transacted amounts in the bank accounts of Parveen had gone, and how only Rs. 1 Lakh approximately is the residual amount in the seven bank accounts of accused Parveen.
12.41 He further replied that he did not know if accused Parveen used to deposit cash in his bank accounts after withdrawing from another bank account, so that he could avail the loan facility and start a start-up in his name. 12.42 He further replied that three statements of accused Parveen were produced before him by the IO before passing Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015. He replied that no documents pertaining to any immovable property qua accused Parveen were shown to him or produced before him.
SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 18 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 15:51:03 +0530 12.43 He replied that he did not remember if any call details between accused Parveen and Shiv Murat Dwivedi prior to year 2010 was produced before him by the IO. He replied that he did not remember if any bank statements showing any transactions between accused Parveen and Shiv Murat Dwivedi were produced before him by the IO.
12.44 The witness was put question that at the time of passing Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015, he was neither apprised about the source of the cash transactions reflected in the table pertaining to accused Parveen Bank account, nor were he apprised about the final destination of cash to which these amounts were sent to which, he replied that he was not told.
12.45 The witness was put question that who had placed the present ECIR before him requesting for passing of Provisional Attachment Order, when he was not the IO of the ECIR to which witness replied that as a Supervisiory Officer, ECIR was placed before him and he preferred to pass Provisional Attachment Order.
12.46 The witness was put question that on what date the ECIR alongwith all purported documents were placed before him, based on which he had passed Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015 to which he had replied that as a Supervisory Officer, various cases dealt by the IOs were examined from time to time and today he did not remember the exact date.
12.47 He further replied that he cannot exactly tell as to how much time it took to examine the record placed by IO, prior to passing Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2015.
SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 19 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:51:12 +0530 12.48 He further replied that in his tenure, in number of cases Provisional Attachment Order was not passed and it depends upon the case to case and facts and circumstances of the individual case.
12.49 He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely on saying of the IO to suit the circumstances of the case.
13. PW-5 Retired ACP Sh. Mehar Singh:- He deposed that during the year 2010, he was posted as Sub Divisional (ACP) Hauz Khas, New Delhi. He further deposed that police station Saket falls under Hauz Khas Sub Division at that time. He further deposed that on 26.02.2010, the FIR bearing no. 47/2010 was registered at Police Station Saket against accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, Parveen Kumar and six other girls. He had identified the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar during his examination in the Court.
13.1 He further deposed that as per the record, the investigation of the case bearing FIR no. 47/2010 PS Saket was assigned and investigated by IO the then SHO Sh. Pankaj Singh. He voluntarily deposed that the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen were also involved in one MCOCA case bearing FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket in which he was the investigating officer and the chargesheet was filed and the case is pending for trial before this Court. He deposed that he had also knowledge that in that MCOCA case, the confessional statement of the accused persons were also recorded and record of the same were filed in FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket. He further deposed that in FIR No. 47/2010, PS Saket, five co accused persons who were chargesheeted had pleaded guilty qua the allegations for which they were chargesheeted. He deposed that as per the record, the SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 20 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:51:25 +0530 chargesheet was prepared and the same was forwarded by him and the chargesheet of the FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket was identified as Ex. PW3/A. He further deposed that the chargesheet of the FIR No. 47/2010 was identified as Ex. PW3/B which contain the signature of the IO Pankaj Singh at point A and his signature at point B. 13.2 He had identified the record of the FIR bearing no. 54/2010 as Ex. PW3/C and the chargesheet (collectively with documents) of the record of the FIR bearing no. 54/2010 as Ex. PW3/D and contained his signature at point A. 13.3 He further deposed that during the investigation of the FIR No. 47/2010, PS Saket and FIR No. 54/2010, PS Saket, it came into the notice that accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was having six bank accounts and he had transaction of approximately Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and it also came into the notice that accused Parveen was having seven bank accounts in different banks and he had transaction of approximately Rs. 1,11,00,000/- through those accounts. He further deposed that it was also found that accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was having immovable properties in Jawahar Park, Devli, New Delhi and immovable property at his native place at village Chamroha, Chitrakoot District, Uttar Pradesh.
13.4 He further deposed that similarly, the accused Parveen had also immovable properties (two houses) in Mehrauli, New Delhi and one vehicle registered in his name. He further deposed that it was also found that both the accused persons had generated these immovable and movable properties by the illegal activities. He further deposed that he did not recollect as to whether the ED officials had collected any SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 21 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:52:13 +0530 document from the IO of the FIR No. 47/2010, PS Saket. He further deposed that he also did not recollect whether ED officials had collected any document from him being IO of the FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket.
13.5 The witness had identified the signature of the Inspector Pankaj with respect to the document of FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket as he had worked with him and he had seen his signature on various documents in the course of his official duties.
13.6 During cross examination made on behalf of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, he replied that he did not recollect today the duration for which inspector Pankaj Singh had worked under his supervision.
13.7 The witness was put question that he was summoned by the Court on that day on the limited aspect, as the then SHO/IO of FIR No. 47/2010, PS Saket Sh. Pankaj Singh had already expired in order to identify his signatures on the documents related with the record of FIR No. 47/2010, PS Saket to which he replied that he had only received the summons to appear before the Court as a witness and he did not have idea about the details of the order of the Court to summon him as a witness in the Court.
13.8 He replied that he did not remember the details of bank account of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He further deposed that he did not remember exactly the year of transaction with respect to his deposition regarding transaction of approximately Rs. 1,50,00,000/- qua accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He voluntarily replied that the entire transaction was mentioned in the chargesheet and is a matter of record.
SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 22 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:52:27 +0530 13.9 He replied that he did not have the details of the investigation qua the generation of illegal money with respect to accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi as conducted by Inspector Pankaj in FIR No. 47/2010, PS Saket.
13.10 He further replied that he had verified during his investigation in FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket with respect to the illegal money generated by accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi while examining the bank account details of the accused and while examining the diaries recovered during the investigation in which the detail of monetary transaction and expenses were mentioned. 13.11 He replied that he had not handed over any document related to the bank monetary transaction of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and the said diary details to the officials of ED, neither he remember that the same was demanded by the ED.
13.12 The witness was put question that as to whether Inspector Pankaj Singh used to sign in uniform manner or he used to sign in different manner with some variation, to which he replied that he did not notice the signature of the Inspector Pankaj Singh in such a minute manner.
13.13 He denied the suggestion that he cannot identify the signature of the Inspector Pankaj Singh and he had identified the signatures only on the basis of the record. He further denied the suggestion that he had no role in the investigation of the present case and he had only deposed in order to seek conviction of the accused persons being IO of the FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely. 13.14 During cross examination made on behalf of the accused Parveen, witness was put question that about two SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 23 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:52:35 +0530 immovable properties in Mehrauli acquired by accused Parveen, can he point out from the record the ownership documents of the said two properties, to which he replied that he was unable to find out presently the said ownership documents in the record. 13.15 Witness was put question that he in examination in chief had stated that there was transaction of Rs. 1,11,00,000/- from the bank accounts of accused Parveen, could he tell what was the total residue amount from all the bank accounts of accused Parveen, to which he replied that he cannot tell the total residue amount but in the chargesheet of the FIR bearing no. 54/2010, PS Saket in page no. 45 to 48 and page no. 60, he had mentioned the details of investigation in respect to the properties and bank details etc.
14. PW-6 Sh. Swapan Bose:- He deposed that he had filed the present complaint in his official capacity as Assistant Director at Directorate of Enforcement as per the notification and provisions of PML Act, 2002. He further deposed that on 25.02.2010, the police officials of PS Saket had apprehended two male persons and six female persons and had registered an FIR No. 47/2010 dated 26.02.2010 U/s 4/5/6 of ITP Act. He had identified the FIR as Ex. PW3/A. He deposed that in the said FIR, the Police Station Saket had filed the chargesheet against two male persons and six female persons. He deposed that the name of male persons were Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar. He had identified the chargesheet as Ex. PW3/B. 14.1 He deposed that another FIR No. 56/2010 again said FIR No. 54/2010 was registered under MCOC Act at PS Saket and further final report was filed in that case. He had identified the FIR bearing no. 54/2010 as Ex. PW3/C and the SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:52:44 +0530 chargesheet as Ex. PW3/D. He further deposed that the said FIR was registered against Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar. 14.2 He deposed that the chargesheet and the documents of FIR No. 47/2010 Police Station Saket and FIR No. 54/2010 revealed that the accused Shiv Murat and Parveen were engaged in the business of flesh trade in organized manner for pecuniary gain. He deposed that as the offence under Section 5/6 & 8 of the ITP Act were schedule offences, hence, the ECIR No. 53/DZ/2010 dated 15.03.2010 was recorded by the Delhi Zonal Office, Directorate of Enforcement under Section 3 of PML Act,2002 punishable Under Section 4 of the PML Act,2002. He had identified the ECIR as Ex. PW6/A containing the signature of Sh. Sharad Chaudhary at point A and B, the then Assistant Director with whom he had worked.
14.3 He deposed that after recording the ECIR, the department had initiated the investigation and copies of the all the relevant documents from Delhi Police, Saket Courts, were obtained. He further deposed that letter directives were also issued to the banks for calling relevant documents of accounts, directives were also issued to income tax department and the documents were scrutinized. He deposed that confessional statement of Shiv Murat Dwivedi was recorded U/s 18 of the MCOC Act by the Saket Courts wherein Shiv Murat Dwivedi had confessed his crime of flesh trade and other illegal activities. He had identified the confessional statement of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi as Ex. PW6/B. He deposed that the confessional statement of accused Parveen was recorded U/s 18 of the MCOC Act wherein accused Parveen had also confessed his criminal activities and flesh trade business. He had identified the SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 25 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:52:54 +0530 confessional statement of accused Parveen as Ex. PW6/C. He further deposed that the girls namely Shashi Prabha, Raina Singh, Riya Sharma, Seema Chakraborty had pleaded guilty before the Hon'ble Court in FIR No. 47/2010 and Hon'ble Court had convicted the said persons.
14.4 He further deposed that the said order was collected during the investigation and the same are the part of the judicial record of the present case and the said orders are marked as Mark A, Mark B, Mark C and Mark D. 14.5 He further deposed that seven personal diaries, three registers and several notes were recovered by the police at the instance of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and the recovered documents shows income and expenditure of accused Shiv Murat for his illegal trade of flesh.
14.6 He deposed that certain loose sheets, diaries were also recovered at the instance of accused Parveen by the police from his rented accommodation at O-5, C.R Park, New Delhi and these diaries also contained income expenditure and details of persons indulged in flesh trade. He further deposed that from the locker of accused Parveen in Kotak Mahindra Bank at Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, 12 loose sheets were also seized by the Delhi Police.
14.7 He further deposed that accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was using four mobile phones which is mentioned in the complaint filed by the department before the Hon'ble Court. He further deposed that one of the mobile which the accused had disowned during the course of investigation contains the same address where he was previously residing and the said address was also mentioned in his HDFC Bank Account. He further SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 26 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:53:02 +0530 deposed that the address was also mentioned in the three FIRs previously registered against the accused. He further deposed that the details of the same have been mentioned in the complaint filed by the department. He further deposed that the contact in the said mobiles were saved with prefix like Bro for Broker and Bom for Bombay etc. 14.8 He further deposed that the CDR of the mobile established that the accused was running a crime syndicate in an organised manner. He further deposed that CDR also shows that several incoming and outgoing calls between accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and accused Parveen and caller ID also established the close nexus between the accused Parveen and Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He deposed that the details have been elaborately mentioned in the complaint filed by the department. 14.9 He deposed that the copy of the CDR of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi were collected during the investigation from the police department along with the charge sheet of FIR No. 54/2010, PS Saket and the copy of the CDR marked as Mark PW6/EX-1. He deposed that accused Parveen was using two mobile numbers wherein the name of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi under the prefix alphabet 'E'. Alphabet 'E' means for Pimp. He deposed that the name of the call girls were saved under the prefix alphabet 'Z'.
14.10 He further deposed that From the CDR also, it was established that several incoming and outgoing calls were made with accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and he was also running the syndicate in organised manner. He deposed that the details have been mentioned by the department in the complaint filed before this court. He deposed that the copy of the CDR of the accused SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 27 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:53:10 +0530 Parveen were collected during the investigation from the police department along with the charge sheet of FIR No. 54/2010, PS Saket and the copy of the CDR as Mark PW 6/EX-2. He deposed that accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was having three rented accommodation for running the prostitution racket. 14.11 He further deposed that the details of rented accommodation have been mentioned in the complaint filed by the department before the court. He deposed that the statement of one Dushyant Kumar was recorded under Section 50 of PML Act, 2002. He further deposed that Dushyant Kumar was one of the landlord of the one of the rented accommodation of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He further deposed that the statement of Dushyant Kumar under Section 50 of the PML Act 2002 was recorded as Ex. PW1/A. 14.12 He deposed that similarly, accused Parveen also was having three rented accommodation for running the prostitution racket. He further deposed that the details of rented accommodation have been mentioned in the complaint filed by the department before the court.
14.13 He deposed that the statement of one Sh. Gurmeet Singh, the one of the landlord of the rented accommodation of accused Parveen was recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act. He had identified the statement of Gurmeet Singh recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 as Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that the application was made before the Ld. MM for recording the statement under Section 50 of PML Act of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen.
14.14 He further deposed that Ld. MM had granted the permission for the same. He deposed that for recording the SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 28 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:53:25 +0530 statement of accused persons, the official from the department went to the Tihar Jail. He further deposed that at that juncture of time, both the accused persons had refused to give the statement as they wanted to consult their advocates before giving the statement. He deposed that the details of same have been mentioned in the complaint filed by the department before the court.
14.15 He further deposed that the order dated 24.06.2013 of the Ld. MM as Ex. PW6/D and the statements of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar dated 04.02.2014 under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 was recorded as Ex. PW6/E and PW6/F. 14.16 He deposed that to grant another opportunity to the accused persons, fresh application was moved by the department before the Ld. Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi for recording the statement and the Ld. Sessions Judge vide order dated 24.05.2014 had granted permission to record the statement. He had identified the order dated 24.05.2014 as Ex. PW6/G. 14.17 He further deposed that subsequently, the statement of Shiv Murat Dwivedi was recorded U/s 50 of PML Act on 29.05.2014 as Ex. PW6/H. He further deposed that subsequently in compliance of the order dated 24.05.2014, on 06.06.2014, the statement of Parveen Kumar was recorded U/s 50 of PML Act as Ex. PW6/I. 14.18 He further deposed that perusal of the statement and documents showed that both the accused persons had generated huge illicit money out of illegal business of prostitution without justification of their source of income. He deposed that the details have also been mentioned by him in the complaint filed SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 29 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:53:37 +0530 before this Court. He deposed that after recording of the statement of accused Shiv Murat and Parveen, summons were again issued in March, 2015 for recording the statement U/s 50 of the PML Act,2002.
14.19 He further deposed that statement of Shiv Murat Dwivedi was recorded on 20.03.2015 as Ex. PW6/J. He deposed that subsequently statement of Parveen was recorded on 23.03.2015 and 24.03.2015 under Section 50 of PML Act as Ex. PW6/K and Ex. PW6/L. He deposed that the details have also been mentioned by him in the complaint filed before this Court. 14.20 He deposed that from the statement of Shiv Murat Dwivedi recorded on 29.05.2014 and 20.02.2014, it was observed that while on 29.05.2014, he had stated on oath that he was arrested in R.K Puram but shown at PVR Complex. He deposed that on 20.03.2014, he stated on oath that while he was going to village, he stopped at PVR Saket for fetching drinking water from where he was arrested. He further deposed that the above statements of Shiv Murat Dwivedi were contradictory and he had stated the incorrect versions on oath, which further proves his guilt.
14.21 He deposed that perusal of the statement and documents showed that both the accused persons had generated huge illicit money out of illegal business of prostitution without justification of their source of income. He deposed that the details have also been mentioned by him in the complaint filed before this Court.
14.22 He deposed that the documents i.e. bank statement application form, LIC documents, vehicles belonging to the accused persons and perusal of the same, shows that huge money SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 30 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:53:57 +0530 were generated by the accused persons to the illegal business which were proceeds of crime.
14.23 He deposed that accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi had the property bearing no. C-120, Jawahar Park, Devli Road, Khanpur. He further deposed that the GPA of the property was seized by the police alongwith receipts of Kanchana Devi. He deposed that the construction was made after the purchase and building was of 4.5 storied. He further deposed that said property was purchased and built through proceeds of crime. He had identified the copy of GPA and receipt seized by the police as Mark X1.
14.24 He deposed that the accused persons had issued advertisement in newspaper for body massage, escort service, spa etc. for running the business of prostitution. The copies of advertisements are mark as X-2. He further deposed that the department had also received the ITR of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar against the PAN number of accused persons from the Income Tax Department with the letter. He deposed that the details have been mentioned by him in the complaint and the same was identified as Ex. PW6/M. 14.25 He deposed that the record and material were placed before Dy. Director ED and with the reasonable belief that the properties were proceeds of crime were required to be attached and the Dy. Director being the competent authority had issued provisional attachment order. He had identified the said provisional attachment order no. 9/2015 as Ex. PW4/1. 14.26 He deposed that on the basis of the investigation by the police and the investigation conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement under PML Act, it was revealed that accused Shiv SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 31 RAVINDRA Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:54:07 +0530 Murat and Parveen were engaged in the business of prostitution and had generated proceeds of crime and have committed the offence under the PML, Act. The same had been identified as Ex. PW6/N and same contains his signature at point A. 14.27 During cross examination made on behalf of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, he replied that he did not know the date when he came to know about registration of FIR No. 47/2010 at PS Saket. He replied that same was his reply in respect to the FIR No. 54/2010, PS Saket.
14.28 He further replied that he did not remember the date or number of the notification under which he had filed the present complaint. He further replied that he did not remember the section under which the FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket was registered. He voluntarily replied that it was a case registered under ITP Act. He replied that he did not remember the date on which the chargesheet of FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket was filed before the Court, neither he remember the date of filing of chargesheet of the FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket in the Court. 14.29 He replied that he did not remember as to whether the chargesheet in FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket and chargesheet in FIR No. 47/2010, PS Saket was filed prior to the filing of the present complaint or were filed after filing of the present complaint.
14.30 He replied that he had not recorded the ECIR in the present case. He further replied that he had not personally summoned the record from the concerned police station with respect to the FIR No. 54/2010 and FIR No. 47/2010, PS Saket after recording of the present ECIR.
14.31 He replied that he did not remember the name of the SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 32 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:54:23 +0530 officer who had summoned the record of FIR No. 47/2010 and FIR No. 54/2010 both PS Saket with respect to the present ECIR, neither he remember the date of summoning these records with respect to the present ECIR.
14.32 He replied that he did not remember the name of the officer who had sent letter directives to the bank with respect to the relevant record pertaining to the accounts of the accused persons. He replied that neither he had remember the date of the same.
14.33 He further replied that he did not remember the name of the officer who had sent request to the Income Tax Department with respect to the relevant record pertaining to the ITR of the accused persons. He replied that neither he remember the date of the same.
14.34 He replied that he did not know if there was any notification or law which authorise the Enforcement Department to use the statement of any person or accused recorded under Section 18 of MCOC Act.
14.35 He further replied that he did not know any other illegal activities as stated by him in his examination in chief on 18.08.2025 in addition to flesh trade mentioned therein of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi.
14.36 He replied that the confessional statement of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi Under Section 18 of the MCOC Act was not recorded in his presence. He further replied that the statement of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi Under Section 18 of the MCOC Act was recorded before the Court.
14.37 He replied that the seven personal diaries, three registers and several notes as mentioned in his examination in SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 33 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:54:33 +0530 chief dated 18.08.2025 have been filed by him in the present case alongwith the complaint with respect to the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi.
14.38 He further replied that he did not remember as to whether he had verified as to whether police had associated any independent witness at the time of seizure of the seven diaries, three registers and various notes.
14.39 He further replied that he did not remember the total number of notes which were seized from the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi as stated by him in his examination in chief after 18.08.2025. He replied that the notes were handwritten. He further replied that he had seen the said notes during his investigation. He further replied that he did not remember whether the said notes were written in ruled paper or on plain paper.
14.40 He replied that he did not remember as to whether any cash was also recovered from the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi during the investigation. He further replied that he did not remember the description or mobile numbers which were seized four mobile phones of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi as stated by him in his examination in chief on 01.09.2025. 14.41 He further replied that one of the mobile phone was disowned by the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi in the police investigation. He replied that he did not remember the address details of the phone which was disowned by the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi.
14.42 He further replied that he did not remember the branch details of the said HDFC Bank as mentioned in his examination in chief on 01.09.2025. He replied that he did not SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 34 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:54:44 +0530 remember the details of the three said FIRs previously registered against the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi as mentioned in his examination in chief dated 01.09.2025.
14.43 He replied that he assumed the word Broker and not brother for prefix 'bro' which was saved in the mobile phone of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi on the basis of investigation as it was a case of flesh trade.
14.44 He replied that he did not seek any explanation from accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi about the prefix 'Bro'. He voluntarily replied that same was based on police investigation. He replied that he did not remember the exact numbers in which pre-fix 'Bro' was used. He replied that he did not know whether the prefix 'Bro' and prefix 'Bom' were used together or not for a single contact number. He replied that he did not know whether 'Del' or any other prefix was used referring to any other cities except for prefix 'Bom'.
14.45 He further replied that prefix 'Bro' was used multiple times. He replied that he had not investigated from any of the persons whose contact were saved as 'Bro'. He replied that he did not remember the mobile number of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi which he mentioned about the CDR pertaining to said accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi in the deposition dated 01.09.2025.
14.46 He replied that from the term 'Crime Syndicate', he mean accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, accused Parveen and the girls and no other person. He further replied that there is no handbook, rules or regulations of the department which specify any particular activity of any persons as organized or unorganized crime syndicate.
SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 35 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:54:58 +0530 14.47 He further replied that his observation regarding the use of term 'organized crime syndicate' against the accused Parveen and Shiv Murat Dwivedi was based on the finding/investigation of the police and he had not independently formed any opinion in this respect.
14.48 He replied that he did not remember from what period the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and accused Parveen were in contact with each other from the details of the CDR. He further replied that he did not remember as to whether he had analysed from the CDR regarding the period from which accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and accused Parveen were in contact with each other. He voluntarily replied that duration was disclosed in the statement of accused Parveen, however, he did not recollect the date of the said statement.
14.49 He replied that he did not procure any call recordings or messages exchanged between the two accused persons.
14.50 He further replied that he did not summon the CDR of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi but it was done by the police, however, he did not remember the FIR in which the said CDR was summoned. He again replied that in FIR No. 47/2010, the said CDR was summoned.
14.51 He replied that the accused Parveen had two mobile phones make Nokia, however, he did not remember the phone numbers. He further replied that he did not remember if in the mobile phone of Parveen, the prefix 'E' was used only for accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi or other persons also. He replied that under the prefix alphabet 'Z' there were multiple numbers saved in the mobile phone of Parveen. He further replied that he SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 36 RAVINDRA Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:55:12 +0530 had not verified the identity details of the persons whose numbers were saved with prefix 'Z' and to whom he had referred as girls. He voluntarily replied that the names of Shashi Prabha, Riya Sharma, Raina Singh and Seema Chakraborty were also present with the prefix 'Z'.
14.52 He replied that he had not personally enquired from these girls or the persons whose numbers were saved with prefix 'Z' during his investigation.
14.53 He further replied that if a persons gets a mobile phone of any other person in unlocked condition, he may change or alter or delete the contact details including contact names in the mobile phone. He replied that no complaint can be filed or proceedings under PML Act can be initiated only on the basis of CDR. He voluntarily replied that it depends upon case to case. 14.54 He replied that the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi had taken on rent the three accommodation in his name and the said accommodations were at Humaynpur, R.K Puram and Mohammadpur. He replied that he did not remember the details of the address of these three accommodations. He replied that he had not visited to the above three accommodations during his investigation of the present case.
14.55 He replied that one of the landlord namely Dushyant Singh gave the statement regarding the running prostitution racket from the Humayunpur address and on that basis as well as the basis of the police investigation, he came to the conclusion that accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was running a prostitution racket.
14.56 He further replied that he did not recollect that what particular fact came into the notice with respect to the police SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 37 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:55:31 +0530 investigation on the basis of which he came to the conclusion that a prostitution racket was run by accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. 14.57 He replied that he had not conducted any investigation with respect to the alleged rented accommodations of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi of R.K Puram and Mohammadpur.
14.58 He replied that he did not enquire or investigate any neighbour or member of the locality with respect to the rented premises at Humaynpur.
14.59 He further replied that he did not remember the exact date when the department had moved an application for recording the statement of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and accused Parveen under Section 50 of the PML Act. He further replied that the same was moved in the month of May, however, he did not remember the year. He further replied that he did not remember the official who had moved the said application. He further replied that the said application was moved in the Saket Courts, however, he did not remember the details of the court or the presiding officer. He replied that neither he remember the date of the disposal of the said application. 14.60 He further replied that perhaps, Sh. Rajeev Kumar, the then Assistant Director had recorded the statement of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi under Section 50 of the PML Act. He replied that as far as he can recollect, the same was recorded on 29th May, however, he did not remember the year. He further replied that he did not remember the number of officials present at the time of recording of the statement of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi under Section 50 of the PML Act.
14.61 He replied that he did not remember whether the SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 38 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 15:55:41 +0530 said officials have been made witnesses in the present case. He replied that he did not know if any questionnaire was sent by the department or witness to the said officials for being put to the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi.
14.62 He replied that he did not remember the date, month or year when the fresh application was moved by the department for recording the statement of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi under Section 50 of PML Act. He further replied that the said application was perhaps moved by Sh. Bhogindro Singh, the then Assistant Director. He replied that the said application was allowed by the competent court, however, he did not remember the date when the said application was allowed. He replied that the statement of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, however, he did not remember the date, month and year. He replied that for recording of the statement, Sh. Bhogindro Singh, the then Assistant Director along with Sh. Devendra Singh went to record the statement of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He replied that the statement was recorded in Central jail, Tihar.
14.63 He replied that in his examination in chief dated 12.09.2025, he had used the word that 'perusal of statement and documents showed that both the accused persons had generated huge illicit money out of their illegal business of prostitution without justification of their source of income'. 14.64 Witness was asked the question can he specify the statement and documents as referred by him to which he replied that the term Statement is referred of the statement of the accused and the document is referred as bank documents and property and insurance documents of the accused Shiv Murat SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 39 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 15:55:50 +0530 Dwivedi. He further replied that however, he did not remember the date of the statements.
14.65 He denied the suggestion that he intentionally evading answering specific question with respect to statement of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, wherein the accused admits that he was running prostitution racket.
14.66 He replied that the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was having multiple bank accounts which he had analysed during the course of the investigation. He further replied that the name of the said banks are HDFC Bank, Barclays Bank and ICICI Bank. He further replied that he did not remember the branch of any of the said banks. He replied that he did not remember the period of the statement of account which he had analysed of HDFC bank, Barclays Bank and ICICI Bank with respect to accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He replied that he did not remember the closing balance of HDFC bank, Barclays Bank and ICICI Bank as on 25.02.2010 with respect to the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He replied that he did not remember whether the accumulated closing balance of all the three accounts mentioned above were under Rs. 2 lakh, Rs. 5 Lakh, Rs. 50 Lakh, Rs. 1 Cr. Or Rs. 2 Cr. or more.
14.67 He replied that the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi had two Life Insurance Policies. He further replied that he did not remember whether the said LIC policies were active or dormant as on 25.02.2010. He replied that he did not remember the premium value of the said two LICs. He further replied that he did not remember whether the said premiums were to be paid monthly, quarterly, biannually or annually. 14.68 He replied that he did not remember as to whether SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 40 RAVINDRA Digitally RAVINDRA signed by KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:56:08 +0530 he himself had collected the bank statement and LIC documents of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi or any other person had collected the same for him.
14.69 He replied that the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi had one car and one two wheeler, however, he did not remember today their registration number. He replied that he had not personally seen those vehicles during his investigation. 14.70 He replied that he cannot say if any official from the ED had ever seen the said two vehicles. He replied that he did not know the make or company of the motorcycle. He replied that the car belonging to the accused was of Honda Company, however, he did not remember the colour or make of the said vehicle. He replied that he did not know if the said car was a pre- owned (second hand) or brand new. He replied that he did not know if the said car was hypothecated from bank or purchased by the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi from his own pocket. 14.71 He replied that he had never visited the property at Jawahar Park belonging to accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He replied that he did not remember whether any other official from ED ever visited the said property at Jawahar Park. He replied that he did not remember if he analysed the GPA of the Jawahar Park property.
14.72 He replied that he did not know the sale consideration mentioned in the GPA/ title deed of the said property. He replied that he did not know the land area over which the said Jawahar Park Property was situated. He replied that he did not remember when the said property was purchased by accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He replied that it was purchased from one Kanchana Devi. He further replied that he had not SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 41 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:56:22 +0530 investigated the said Kanchana Devi.
14.73 He replied that he did not remember the date, month and year in which the property situated at Jawahar Park was purchased by accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He replied that the said property was partly constructed property. He further replied that he did not know exactly about the constructed portion of the said property at the time of the purchase of the same by the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He replied that he did not know about the number of floors constructed at the time of the purchase of the said property by the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi.
14.74 He replied that he did not investigate on the aspect of income derived by accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi through agricultural, dairy, religious activities as stated by him in his statement to the Enforcement Directorate. He further replied that he did not know as to whether any official from the department investigated the aforesaid aspects.
14.75 He denied the suggestion that he intentionally did not investigate the actual source of income qua agricultural, dairy, religious activities with respect to the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi.
14.76 He replied that he did not investigate the agricultural land in the name of Shiv Murat Dwivedi or his family. He further replied that he did not investigate as to exact years in which the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi has constructed the each and every floor of the Jawahar Park Property.
14.77 He denied the suggestion that he had intentionally did not investigate the aforesaid fact to bolster the case of the prosecution.
SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 42 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 15:56:30 +0530 14.78 He replied that by way of his statement in respect to the advertisement he had mentioned 'accused persons' the meaning of accused persons means accused Shiv Murat and accused Parveen. He replied that he did not know the name of the news paper and the date on which the advertisement was published at the behest of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. 14.79 He replied that he had not investigated any person from the concerned newspaper agency about the advertisement published in the said newspaper. He further replied that he had not filed the advertisement. He voluntarily replied that the same was the part of police charge sheet. He replied that he had gone through the advertisement during the course of his investigation. He replied that the word 'Prostitution' was not mentioned in the newspaper advertisement.
14.80 He replied that there was no notification, order or circular of the department which holds running of massage parlour/ SPA as illegal.
14.81 He replied that the ITR of assessment year 2003- 2004, 2004-2005 and 2007-2008 were summoned by them. 14.82 He replied that all the documents related to accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi were produced before the Dy. Director before the passing of the order of Provisional attachment. He replied that he had sent the documents/ record to the said Dy. Director. He further replied that he did not remember the date, month on which the said document / record was sent to the Dy. Director, however, the year was 2015. He replied that the documents/ record were not sent through covering letter, however indexing were done. He replied that he had not filed the index of the document with the record of the present complaint. Sh.
SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 43 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2025.11.19 15:56:39 +0530 Hemant Gupta was the then Dy. Director who had issued the Provisional Attachment order.
14.83 He denied the suggestion that neither he nor the department sent any document / record to the Dy. Director before passing of the Provisional Attachment Order. 14.84 He further replied that he had not investigated about the legal source of income of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi.
He replied that no banking transaction were found between the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen during his investigation. He replied that he had not followed the money trail of the alleged money of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi during his investigation. "kahan se cash aaya ye jaanch kiya, kahan gaya ye jaanch nahin kiya, huge cash transaction jama hua". 14.85 He replied that he had not disclosed the name of any person who had allegedly deposited the money in the account of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He replied that about 60 - 70% of the money was credited in the accounts of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi by way of cash deposit. He further replied that he had mentioned in the complaint the amount of cash deposited in the accounts of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. 14.86 The witness has been shown the complaint Ex. PW 6/N and asked to pinpoint the exact amount of cash allegedly deposited in the accounts of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He replied that in para 8.1 mark as A column 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 are mentioned as the cash deposit in the account of Shiv Murat Dwivedi.
14.87 He replied that he had not examined the counter foils/ deposit slips of the bank so as to ascertain the name of the depositor in the accounts of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 44 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 15:56:54 +0530 replied that even accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi could have deposited the cash amount in his accounts. 14.88 He replied that the aspect of deposit of cash amount into ones account comes within the ambit of Income Tax department and not Enforcement Directorate. 14.89 He replied that he did not remember as to whether he had filed the photographs of the property of the Jawahar Park belonging to accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi with the complaint. 14.90 He further replied that he had not conducted the valuation of the property situated in Jawahar Park from SDM/ Tehsildar. He voluntarily replied that the property was valued from a valuer engaged by the department. He replied that he had not recorded the statement of the valuer as a witness of the present case. He further replied that he did not remember the name of the valuer or his office details etc. 14.91 He replied that the valuers are not empanelled by their department. He further replied that the valuer was government approved valuer.
14.92 He denied the suggestion that the said valuer was not government approved and therefore, his RC has not been filed in the present case. He further denied the suggestion that department has intentionally not made the said valuer a witness in the present case or for the same reason, he had not recorded his statement. He denied the suggestion that the said valuer was acting under the influence of the department to falsely implicate the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi.
14.93 He further denied the suggestion that Honda car belonging to accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was not a luxury car. 14.94 He replied that he did not know about any other cars SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 45 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:57:07 +0530 belonging to accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He replied that accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was having servant, however, he did not remember the number of servant whether it was one or multiple and also their names, salary and details. He further replied that he had not recorded the statement of servants of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi in the present case. 14.95 He denied the suggestion that he had intentionally exaggerated and mentioned luxury cars (being plural) in his complaint. He denied the suggestion that accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi had any servant, therefore, he was unable to name or show their salaries or other expenses towards the servants. 14.96 He replied that he did not remember if the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi had purchased any jewellery. He further replied that he had not visited the native village Chamroha, District Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh, neither any other official from the department had visited there.
14.97 He further replied that the three other FIRs (except FIR No. 47/2010 and FIR No. 54/2010) were also under ITP Act. He replied that the FIRs were of Delhi and Noida, but he cannot tell the details of the FIRs. He replied that he had not collected the charge sheet and other document of those three other FIRs. Same is his answer to the status of those cases. 14.98 He replied that he had recorded the statement of Dushyant Phogat. He further replied that he did not remember the date, month and year in which he had recorded the statement of Dushyant Phogat.
14.99 He replied that he had not visited the property of Dushyant Phogat. He further replied that he did not remember as to whether Dushyant Phogat had executed a lease agreement with SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 46 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 15:57:16 +0530 accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He replied that the rent was Rs. 8000/- on the said property.
14.100 He denied the suggestion that in the property situated at Humayunpur, Santosh Pandit Ji was residing and accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was not residing. He further denied the suggestion that prior to the statement dated 08.01.2020 before this court, the department had put pressure on Dushyant Phogat to falsely implicate the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. 14.101 He replied that he had not recorded the statement of Pankaj Singh. He further replied that he did not recollect who was Pankaj Singh.
14.102 He further replied that he did not know as to whether the accused Parveen and Shiv Murat Dwivedi were co-accused in other FIRs except the FIR No. 47/2010 and FIR No. 54/2010. 14.103 He replied that he did not know the quantification of minimum amount required for initiating the investigation under the PML Act.
14.104 He replied that he had not investigated the customer so as to ascertain as to whether the accused Shiv Muarat Dwivedi provided him girl (s) for prostitution. He further replied that he had not recorded the statement of neighbour so as to ascertain as to whether the prostitution racket was being run from the properties rented by the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. 14.105 He replied that the Jawahar Park property was purchased by the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi for a consideration much less than Rs. 3 lakh.
14.106 He denied the suggestion that the money in the bank account of the Shiv Murat Dwivedi was not the proceed of the crime and the same were the income generated from the SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 47 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
PANDEY 2025.11.19
15:57:24 +0530
agricultural, dairy and religious activities of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi.
14.107 He replied that he had not verified about the details of the pimps and call girls as mentioned in his complaint regarding the alleged panel of pimps and call girls from different part of country.
14.108 He further replied that he had not taken the rent agreement of the other two properties rented to accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi in addition to the property at Humayunpur. He replied that he had not assessed the amount of rent paid by the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi in respect to the properties rented by him.
14.109 He denied the suggestion that he had made a wrong statement with respect to the hand written notes recovered from the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He further denied the suggestion that accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi had not generated any proceed of crime and the department has falsely implicated the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He denied the suggestion that the witnesses cited by him were planted witness in order to falsely implicate the accused persons.
14.110 He denied the suggestion that he had failed to properly investigate the present case and therefore, unable to give accurate picture about the bank accounts, cars, financial transaction, assets, movable and immovable properties, Jawahar Park house or any other ancestral property of the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that he had blindly relied upon the investigation conducted by the police in the FIR no. 47/2010 and 54/2010, in the present case in order to falsely implicate the accused persons and had not conducted his own SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 48 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 15:57:31 +0530 investigation. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation in respect to the CDR, Pimps, Broker, girls in order to falsely implicate the accused. He denied the suggestion that accused was not running any organised crime syndicate. 14.111 He further denied the suggestion that accused Shiv Murat had taken any house on rent. He denied the suggestion that he had not investigated the LIC documents in right perspective. He denied the suggestion that he had intentionally concealed the meagre amount of bank balance in the bank accounts of Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He further denied the suggestion that he had intentionally concealed the meagre amount of LIC Premiums in the name of Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He denied the suggestion that he had intentionally concealed the Honda City car was hypothecated through HDFC Bank of which only Rs. 1.5 Lakh were given by the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi in the beginning. He denied the suggestion that he had not done any investigation with respect to the four wheeler or the two wheeler. He further denied the suggestion that he had not done any investigation with respect to the property at Jawahar Park belonging to accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He denied the suggestion that he had failed to show any nexus between accused Shiv Murat and accused Parveen. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely. 14.112 The witness was put question that is it correct that he did not record statement of any person during the investigation who claimed that he was the customer of accused Parveen who had ever paid any money in return of any sexual favours from any girl supplied by accsued Parveen to which he replied that yes, it is correct.
14.113 The witness was put question that is it correct that SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 49 RAVINDRA Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:57:40 +0530 he did not record statement of any girl during the investigation who claimed that she ever provided any sexual favours to any customer of accused Parveen to which he replied that yes, it is correct.
14.114 He replied that he had not specifically mentioned in the complaint about the specific transfer of money made by any alleged customer in the account of Parveen in lieu of the sexual favour provided to that customer at the instance of the accused Parveen. He replied that he had not specifically mentioned in the complaint about the specific transfer of money made by the accused Parveen in the account of any girl in lieu of the sexual favour provided to that customer at the instance of the accused Parveen.
14.115 He denied the suggestion that the amounts shown in the bank account of accused Parveen was not related to any activity or business related to the Prostitution. He denied the suggestion that it was merely his presumption that the amounts shown deposited or withdrawn from the bank accounts of accused Parveen are related to the activity or business of prostitution, and there was no evidence on record to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint.
14.116 He replied that he did not seize the bank account details or analysed the same that of Shashi Prabha, Raina Singh, Riya Sharma and Seema Chakraborty to substantiate any cross transactions between them and accused Parveen. He replied that he had also not investigated the call details between those girls and accused Parveen.
14.117 He replied that except writing the statement of one Gurmeet Singh claiming to be landlord of accused Parveen, he SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 50 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:57:47 +0530 have not conducted any fresh investigation which was not already investigated in other FIR No. 47/2010 and FIR No. 54/2010.
14.118 He replied that he cannot say that the residual amounts (closing balance) in seven bank accounts shown to be that of accused Parveen was only approximately Rs. 1 Lakh. 14.119 He replied that he did not remember whether the value of the Santro Car of accused Parveen was Rs. 2.5 lakh and that of Honda Civic was Rs. 6.5 Lakh at the relevant time. 14.120 He replied that he did not remember whether the total value of assets of accused Parveen at the time of passing of Provisional Attachment order or at time of filing of present complaint was not above or exceeding Rs. 30 lakh. 14.121 He further replied that he had not shown in his complaint the money trail pertaining to the accused Parveen as to out-flow of money for any particular purpose or to any specific person or for purchase of any movable or immovable asset in his name. He replied that he did not know where the money has disappeared from the account of the accused Parveen. He further replied that he also did not know who has made cash deposits in the account of the accused Parveen.
14.122 He denied the suggestion that accused Parveen used to withdraw money from one of his accounts and deposit the same in another bank account so as to show the transactions for the purpose of obtaining bank loan in future. 14.123 He replied that he did not remember whether he had shown any bank transactions between accused Parveen and Shiv Murat Dwivedi. He replied that he did not find any immovable property in the name of the accused Parveen as allegedly SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 51 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:57:57 +0530 disclosed by him.
14.124 He replied that he did not find any other FIR pending against the accused Parveen other than the FIR No. 47/2010 and 54/2010.
14.125 He denied the suggestion that he had initiated a false and malicious prosecution against the accused persons without any material or incriminating evidence. He further denied the suggestion that he had filed compliant without any incriminating evidence and solely on his own presumption regarding the involvement of the accused persons.
Arguments on behalf of the ED through Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the ED
15. It is submitted on behalf of the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for ED that the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar were charged for the commission of offence punishable U/s 3 & 4 of the PML Act, 2002. It is further submitted that ED had examined total six witnesses in order to prove the charges Under Section 3 & 4 of the PML, Act, 2002. It is further submitted that the complainant was examined as PW6 in the present case and he had proved the complaint as Ex. PW6/N during the trial.
15.1 It is further submitted that the first FIR was registered as FIR No. 47/2010 dated 06.02.2010 at PS Saket and in that FIR, the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, Parveen Kumar and six other girls were apprehended and arrested. 15.2 It is further submitted that the chargesheet in the FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket were also filed for commission of offence punishable U/s 3/4/5/6 and Section 8 of ITP Act. It is further submitted that another FIR No. 54/2010 dated 06.03.2010 was SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 52 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2025.11.19 15:58:04 +0530 registered at PS Saket U/s 3 of the MCOC Act and the chargesheet was also filed in that case against the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar for commission of offence punishable U/s 3 of the MCOC Act.
15.3 It is further submitted that the allegation of offence punishable U/s 5/6 and Section 8 of the ITP Act are schedule offence under the PML Act, 2002 and therefore, the present ECIR/53/DJ/2010 was registered by the Delhi Zonal Office of ED Under Section 3 & 4 of the PML Act, 2002.
15.4 It is submitted that after recording the ECIR of the present case, the bank account details of the accused persons with respect to the financial transactions of accused persons were called and the same were verified and scrutinized by the ED during the investigation of the present case. 15.5 It is further submitted that the document related to the predicate offence bearing FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket and FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket were collected from the investigating agency/police and the same were also scrutinized. 15.6 It is further submitted that during the investigation of FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket, the confessional statement of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was recorded by the then Deputy Commissioner Sh. Sharad Aggarwal U/s 18 of MCOC Act. It is submitted that statement recorded U/s 18 of the MCOC Act is admissible as per MCOC Act.
15.7 It is further submitted that the said statement as recorded U/s 18 of the MCOC Act is also admissible in the cases registered under PMLA and admissibility of the statement is general in nature without any exception.
15.8 It is further submitted that in FIR No. 47/2010 PS SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 53 RAVINDRA Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:58:14 +0530 Saket, the female accused persons except the accused Shalini Gautam had pleaded guilty with respect to the charge of offence punishable U/s 8 of the ITP Act and they were held guilty and convicted accordingly. It is further submitted that the part of the schedule offence was established to be proved in view of plea of guilt by female accused persons with respect to the charge of offence punishable U/s 8 of the ITP Act.
15.9 It is further submitted that several registers, loose papers and diaries and other papers were recovered during the investigation from the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar. It is submitted that from the scrutiny of seized documents, it was found that accused Parveen and Shiv Murat were actively involved in commission of schedule offence and their expenditure, source of income and mode and manner of commission of offence were also found to be corroborated from the documents seized during the investigation. 15.10 It is submitted on behalf of the ED that during the trial and during the course of arguments, the accused persons Shiv Murat and Praveen had failed to discharge the burden of proof that they were having deposits in their bank accounts and insurance policies in their name and valuables like car in their possession with the income from the lawful source. 15.11 It is further submitted that as per Section 23 and 24 of the PMLA, 2002, the burden was upon the accused persons to which they failed to discharge. It is further submitted that the factum of deposit of the cash in their respective accounts, the insurance policies in the name of the accused persons and valuables like car in their possession has been duly proved during the trial. It is further submitted that the ingredients of the offence SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 54 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2025.11.19 15:58:39 +0530 punishable U/s 4 read with Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 has been duly proved. Hence, the accused persons are liable to be convicted.
15.12 It is further submitted that the documentary evidence produced and proved during the trial remained unrebutted during the trial and the case of the ED has been duly proved against the accused persons.
15.13 It is further submitted that witness PW3 (not cross examined as expired during the trial) and PW5 clearly proved the case of the prosecution/ED against the accused persons. Hence, accused persons are liable to be convicted. 15.14 It is further submitted that the testimony of PW1 Dushyant Phogat cannot be discarded as recorded on 08.01.2020 and who was cross examined on 12.09.2024 as the witness was won over by the accused persons during the said period. 15.15 It is further submitted that the valuable articles and money in the account of the accused persons were the result of the proceeds of the crime committed in the predicate offence and due to the same reason, they did not brought any defence. Hence, they are liable to be convicted.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED SHIV MURAT DWIVEDI /DEFENCE, THROUGH LD COUNSEL FOR DEFENCE
16. It is submitted that term money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of the PML Act. Similarly, the proceeds of crime has been defined under Section 2 (u) and property defined under 2 (v) and value is defined under 2 (zv) of the PML Act, 2002.
16.1 It is further submitted that the alleged Jawahar Park SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 55 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:58:50 +0530 property which is relied upon by the prosecution was purchased by the accused in the year 2003 for a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- and the same cannot be considered as a proceeds of crime for the purposes of the present case.
16.2 It is further submitted that as per the definition clause Section 2 (zv), the value of the property is required to be considered as fair market value on the date of acquisition by the person which in the present case is Rs. 1,55,000/- as acquired in the year 2003.
16.3 It is further submitted that any valuation done post 2003 or even after 2010, has no relevance for the purposes of the determination of the value of the property.
16.4 It is submitted that the ECIR was recorded on 15.03.2010 and it is further submitted that the provisional attachment order was issued on 28.03.2015. It is submitted that there is five years gap in recording the ECIR and filing of complaint and PAO.
16.5 It is further submitted that the cognizance in FIR No. 47/2010 was taken on 26.04.2020 and the charge was framed on 10.08.2011.
16.6 It is further submitted that there was no proper explanation regarding the delay in issue of PAO or filing of the complaint in the Court by the ED. It is further submitted that offence if any under ITP Act did not continue after the year 2010 from the date of registration of the FIR No. 47/2010 and no explanation was given by the ED for filing of the complaint with such a long gap of approximately five years.
16.7 It is further submitted that Section 46 of PML Act, SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 56 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 15:59:17 +0530 2002 says that the procedure of the Cr.PC is required to be applied by the Special Court.
It is further submitted that in cross examination dated 16.09.2025 of PW6 Sh. Swapan Bose, it came on record that he was not even aware that the FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket was registered under which provisions of law and what was the actual offence committed with respect to the FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket and neither he had disclosed the date of filing of the chargesheet of FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket and FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket.
16.8 It is further submitted that being an IO, PW6 was not aware who had recorded the ECIR of the present case neither he summoned the record from the concerned police station of FIR no. 54/2010 or 47/2010 nor he was aware about the officer who had summoned the record of the FIR No. 54/2010 and 47/2010 PS Saket.
16.9 It is further submitted that the ED is relying upon the bank documents of the accused persons, however, the witness did not disclose about the details of the officer who had sent the letter directives to the bank pertaining to the accounts of the banks of the accused persons.
16.10 It is further submitted that witness was clueless about the name of the officer who had sent letter to the IT Department with respect to the accused persons.
16.11 It is further submitted that the prosecution is relying upon the confessional statement of MCOC Act, however, there is no legal provision to rely upon the confessional statement of any person recorded under MCOC Act in the ED cases.
SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 57 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:59:27 +0530 16.12 It is further submitted that witness was clueless about the other illegal activities as alleged against the accused persons apart from the allegations of the ITP Act against the accused persons and similarly, he was clueless about the other luxury items, cars and servants.
16.13 It is further submitted that witness PW6 is not a reliable witness as he deposed that the statement of Shiv Murat was recorded U/s 18 of the MCOC Act before the Court.
16.14 It is further submitted that the witness has not filed the seizure memos of the articles recovered from the accused persons. It is further submitted that witness PW6 has been clueless about the fact regarding the presence of any independent witness at the time of seizure of diary, registers and various notes from the accused persons.
16.15 It is further submitted that witness PW6 did not give proper answer regarding the hand written notes, meaning thereby he had not even gone through the alleged hand written notes. Similarly, he is unaware about the cash and mobile phones, Branch of the HDFC, details of three FIRs previously registered against the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi, details as allegedly recovered from the accused persons.
16.16 It is further submitted that witness deposed only on the basis of his own presumption that prefix ' Bro' was used for broker without any basis and without any explanation.
16.17 It is further submitted that witness did not investigate from any of the contact whose number was saved with prefix 'Bro' neither any such record was filed with the complaint or during the trial.
SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 58 RAVINDRA Digitally RAVINDRA signed by KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:59:35 +0530 16.18 It is further submitted that witness deposed in his deposition on 01.09.2025 about the CDR of the accused, however, he did not disclose the mobile number of the alleged CDR.
16.19 It is further submitted that witness PW6 deposed that crime syndicate was constituted of accused Praveen, Shiv Murat and girls, however, he had not explained why the girls were not chargesheeted in the ED complaint or even they were not enquired during the investigation of the present case.
16.20 It is further submitted that witness PW6 conceded that he had not independently investigated about the crime syndicate of the accused Shiv Murat and he had relied upon the investigation of the police agency.
16.21 It is further submitted that witness PW6 did not disclose about the duration of the contact between accused Shiv Murat and Praveen neither he had disclosed about the analysis of the CDR of the accused persons.
16.22 It is further submitted that witness PW6 did not procure any call recording or messages exchanged between the accused persons to show that they were associated with each others. It is further submitted that mere filing of the CDR is not sufficient to show that the accused persons were part of the syndicate of organized crime.
16.23 It is further submitted that witness PW6 deposed wrongly about the summoning of the CDR in FIR case while saying that CDR was summoned in FIR no. 47/2010, however, it was summoned in FIR No. 54/2010. It is submitted that witness PW6 did not applied his mind during the investigation of the SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 59 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2025.11.19 15:59:44 +0530 present case and covered his own investigation while relying on the finding of the police agency without any basis and without following the legal procedure, therefore, the witness deposed many factual incorrect facts during his deposition in the Court.
16.24 It is further submitted that witness similarly was clueless about the mobile phone of the accused Praveen and other details with respect to the accused Praveen.
16.25 It is further submitted that witness was clueless about the pre-fix E and alphabet 'Z' and identify details of the persons having prefix 'E' or 'Z' were not verified during the investigation, neither the contact number with pre-fix 'E' or 'Z' were investigated during the investigation.
16.26 It is further submitted that witness conceded that no complaint can be filed under the PML Act only on the basis of CDR. It is further submitted that witness had not produced any lease deed regarding the properties of Humaynpur, R.K Puram or Mohammadpur allegedly in the name of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi neither he had visited to these place during the investigation of the present case, nor the landlord was examined, nor the rent amount were proved to establish the fact about the paying capacity of the accused Shiv Murat during the trial.
16.27 It is further submitted that witness Dushyant Singh, the one of the alleged landlord with respect to the accused Shiv Murat did not support the case of the prosecution and he deposed that ED officials pressurized him to depose against the accused Shiv Murat.
16.28 It is further submitted that only one witness from the public i.e. the alleged landlord was associated as there was no SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 60 RAVINDRA Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 15:59:51 +0530 illegality on the part of the accused persons and due to the same reason, the said one witness also deposed in the Court that the ED had pressurized to depose against the accused Shiv Murat.
16.29 It is further submitted that prosecution has intentionally withheld with the examination of the two other alleged landlords of the Shiv Murat Dwivedi in order to claim the accused Shiv Murat in the present case as they would have deposed in favour of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi.
16.30 It is further submitted that witness has conceded to reply that what were the 'particular fact' on the basis of which he came to the conclusion that the accused Shiv Murat was running a prostitution racket. It is further submitted that ED has not associated any neighbour or member of locality with respect to the alleged rented premises.
16.31 It is further submitted that ED has not associated any neighbour or member of locality with respect to the alleged rented premises. It is further submitted that witness has vaguely replied about the month of May of the recording of the statement of the accused persons under Section 50 of the PML Act,2002.
He similarly denied about the name of the officer or date of the disposal of the application.
16.32 It is further submitted that he was clueless about the date of application or date of fresh application under Section 50 of the PML Act,2002 for recording the statement of the accused Shiv Murat Under Section 50 of the PML Act. Neither he properly replied about the disposal of the application or at which date.
16.33 It is further submitted that ED has not associated the SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 61 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 16:00:00 +0530 alleged person namely Bhogendro Singh as a witness who allegedly went to Tihar Jail and moved an application under Section 50 of the PML Act,2002. Neither the officer namely Devender Singh was associated in the investigation who had allegedly recorded the statement of the accused Shiv Murat in Central Jail Tihar under Section 50 of the PML Act,2002.
16.34 It is further submitted that witness gave a wrong statement about the alleged disclosure of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen about their alleged admission of the operating prostitution business in their statement Under Section 50 of the PML Act,2002. It is further submitted that witness had also relied upon the bank statement document of the accused persons to come to the conclusion that the accused persons were allegedly running a prostitution racket, however, it is not possible to reach to the conclusion only on the basis of the bank statement that the accused persons were running prostitution racket.
16.35 It is further submitted that at maximum, the said bank statement and insurance document come within the ambit of tax evasion to the tax department and no case of running sex racket was made out from the bank statement and insurance document of the accused persons.
16.36 It is submitted that during cross examination of the witness PW-6 dated 22.09.2025, the complainant did not replied anything about the bank detail of the accused persons which were allegedly analysed by him during investigation, amount of the account statement, period for the account statement, closing balance etc in the account statement of the accused persons. It is further submitted that infact the IO did not verified anything SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 62 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 16:00:08 +0530 during the investigation with respect to the bank statements of the accused persons and he had filed the complaint without any proper investigation.
16.37 It is further submitted that similarly the IO did not verified the LIC policies of the accused and gave vague replies to that effect. It is further submitted that IO gave vague replies regarding the vehicle make of the alleged vehicle belonging to the accused persons, its registration detail, make detail or pre owned or brand new or whether hypothecated or purchased by accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi.
16.38 It is further submitted that without verification of the bank detail, insurance policy detail or amount of the value of the vehicle, it was not possible to arrive any figure of alleged ill gottan money of the accused/applicant and complaint was filed without any basis.
16.39 It is further submitted that as per his admission of the witness PW6, the witness did not visit to the property at Jawahar Park, not verified its sale consideration, land detail or measurement nor inquired from the previous owner Kanchana Devi from whom the said property was purchased.
16.40 It is further submitted that IO did not inquire about the income of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi from sources like agriculture diary or religious activities and no record was filed as mentioned in his statement recorded U/s 50 of the PMLA,2002.
16.41 It is further submitted that the IO did not inquire or investigated about the alleged advertisement of prostitution racket and he had relied upon the investigation of the police agency. It is further submitted that the witness was asked as to SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 63 RAVINDRA Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 16:00:15 +0530 whether massage parlour or SPA is illegal as per the department to which he vaguely replied. It is further submitted that said advertisement could not be connected with any of the accused persons.
16.42 It is further submitted that witness did not replied the date, month and the year of the sending of the detail/record to the Deputy Director for issuance of Provisional Attachment Order against the accused persons. It is further submitted that witness himself admitted that he did not file the index paper to the provisional attachment application with the present complaint. It is further submitted that infact the proper record and complete record were not put up before the Deputy Director prior to PAO and PAO was issued against the accused persons without any basis and without proper application of mind.
16.43 It is further submitted that witness himself admitted that no banking transaction were found between accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen nor witness had followed the money trail of the alleged money of the accused persons during his investigation.
16.44 It is further submitted that witness failed to disclose the source of the alleged cash deposit in the account of accused persons and no verification was done. Similarly, the witness also failed to disclose the money trail after cash deposit in bank accounts of the accused persons and no verification was done. It is further submitted that the ED had prepared the complaint only on the basis of presumption and without any legal basis. It is further submitted that witness himself admitted that amount of cash deposit in accounts of any person comes within the purview SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 64 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 16:00:23 +0530 of I.T Department and not with the ED.
16.45 It is further submitted that no photographs of the property of Jawahar Park or its valuation was done by SDM/Tehsildar nor any statement of the valuer was recorded and no valuer was examined as a witness during the trial. It is further submitted that Honda City Car or Honda Civic car does not come within the ambit of luxury cars.
16.46 It is further submitted that as per allegation that the accused Shiv Murat was maintaining 6-7 servants. However, no detail of those servants was filed nor any such servant was examined during the trial by the accused.
16.47 It is further submitted that IO/PW6 had vaguely replied about the allegations in other FIRs and gave false statement in the Court that those FIRs were registered under ITP Act. It is further submitted that witness himself admitted that he had not recorded the statement of Pankaj Singh ( IO of FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket) ( as per the record, the statement of the IO Pankaj Singh was recorded during investigation of the ED case).
16.48 It is further submitted that it is not clear from the record that on what basis, the statement of the Pankaj Singh was tagged with the record of the investigation of the present case when witness himself stated that he did not record the statement of Inspector Pankaj Singh. It is further submitted that witness failed to disclose during his cross examination whether accused Parveen and Shiv Murat was co accused in any other case except FIR No. 47/2010 and FIR No. 54/2010 of both PS Saket.
16.49 It is further submitted that the case was not covered within the purview of organized crime syndicate. It is further SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 65 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 16:00:31 +0530 submitted that the quantum of sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs is not matched as per the schedule of PMLA against the accused persons either singally or jointly ( as per Section 2 (y) of PMLA).
16.50 It is further submitted that no alleged customer were examined during investigation by the IO of the case. It is further submitted that as per the admission of the witness, the Jawahar Park property was purchased by accused Shiv Murat for consideration less than Rs. 3 Lakhs. It is further submitted that the deposition of PW3 ACP Pankaj Singh cannot be read as he expired during the trial without completion of his cross examination. It is further submitted that witness PW4 was the witness who had conducted proceeding with respect to the PAO and this witness had wrongly replied to the effect that Section 5,6, and 8 are the schedule offence under PMLA, 2002. However, he had failed to disclose the exact nature of offence punishable U/s 5,6, and 8 of I.T.P Act. Therefore, he was clueless while passing the order of PAO.
16.51 It is further submitted that witness vaguely replied about the detail of other cases allegedly pending against the accused persons and while simply saying that those facts are mentioned in PAO. However, factually he was not aware about the exact proceeding conducted in PAO and the PAO proceeding record was prepared by someoneelse and he had merely signed it without going into its contents.
16.52 It is further submitted that witness PW4 had failed to disclose about the detail of predicate offence. It is further submitted that witness had replied wrongly about the total SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 66 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 16:00:37 +0530 number of vehicles pertain to accused Shiv Murat which were attached as per PAO. It is further submitted that the witness PW4 did not verify the detail of the immovable property of Jawahar Park during the proceeding of PAO and he gave vague replies to that effect. It is further submitted that the six bank accounts as per the admission of the witness were having balance of Rs. 1-2 Lakhs total.
16.53 It is further submitted that the witness had wrongly replied upon the valuer report and came to the wrong conclusion about the value of property of Jawahar Park of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. It is further submitted that during cross examination of the witness PW4 dated 08.11.2023, it came on record that witness had failed to disclose the other pending cases against the accused Parveen apart from FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket and FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket.
16.54 It is further submitted that witness was not aware as to whether accused Parveen was co accused in other alleged five cases with the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and it shows that he had not conducted proper inquiry prior to PAO qua accused Parveen. It is further submitted that witness had failed to reply properly as to why the PAO was done against accused Parveen and Shiv Murat Dwivedi and not against other six girls. It is further submitted that witness had failed to disclose about the property and assets of accused Parveen during his cross examination. It is further submitted that witness conceded to the fact that residual amount in the seven bank accounts of the accused Parveen was approximately Rs. One Lakh.
16.55 It is further submitted that witness had admitted the SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 67 RAVINDRA Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 16:00:46 +0530 approximate value of Honda City Car and Santro Car as Rs. 6.5 and Rs. 2.5 lacs, therefore, these two cars were not covered within the ambit of luxuries cars.
16.56 It is further submitted that the LIC policy of the accused Parveen had lapsed in the year 2010 due to the non payment of the premium amount prior to registration of FIR No. 47/2010. It is further submitted that the criteria as per schedule for sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs were not considered by PW4 during the proceeding of PAO against the accused persons and PAO was wrongly passed and PAO and complaint were silent about that.
16.57 It is further submitted that the PAO order was passed by witness PW4 without even verifying the call detail between accused Parveen and Shiv Murat prior to the year 2010 or without verifying the banking transaction between accused Parveen and Shiv Murat Dwivedi prior to passing the PAO.
16.58 It is further submitted that witness had admitted that the source of credit of the amount in the account of accused persons or its trail further were not disclosed by IO to the witness PW4 prior to passing the PAO against the accused persons. It is further submitted that witness had vaguely replied about the officer who had placed ECIR before him prior to the PAO and no clarification was given by the witness in this regard.
16.59 It is further submitted that witness had not disclosed about the time which took place in the scrutiny of the record prior to passing of PAO. It is further submitted that witness PW4 had also not disclosed about the valuation or location or detail of the Jawahar Park property. He also did not disclose about the fact that whether Honda City Car comes within the purview of SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 68 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 16:00:53 +0530 luxury car.
16.60 It is further submitted that witness also did not disclose about the verification or inquiry if any conducted with respect to accused Shiv Murat regarding his agriculture income or income from performing the religious ceremonies.
16.61 It is further submitted that witness ACP Sh. Mehar Singh was summoned to identify the record related with the Inspector Pankaj Singh who had expired during the trial and this witness ACP Sh. Mehar Singh did not gave any convincing reply with respect to the infirmities in the signature of the witness Inspector Pankaj Singh who had allegedly signed the documents in the presence of ACP Sh. Mehar Singh.
16.62 It is further submitted that prosecution has failed to show that accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen were joint owner or in joint possession of any property in relation to the present case. It is further submitted that accused Parveen was not having any transaction with accused Shiv Murat in any manner prior to the year 2007 i.e. the date when he had shifted to Delhi from Haryana to the year 2010 when FIR No. 47/2010 was registered, nor any transaction was shown from 2010 to 2015 prior to passing the PAO, the prosecution has failed to show any direct or indirect connection between the accused persons Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen.
16.63 It is further submitted that prosecution has failed to establish the proceeds of crime during the trial. It is further submitted that the ingredients of Section 3 of the PMLA,2002 is not proved, so the accused persons are liable to be acquitted from the charge of offence punishable U/s 4 of the PMLA, 2002.
SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 69 RAVINDRA Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 16:01:00 +0530 16.64 It is further submitted that prosecution has failed to prove that the property of the accused persons were derived from the criminal activities related to the schedule offence and the link has to be shown which the prosecution has failed. It is further submitted that ED even prima facie failed to establish the prima facie case against the accused persons.
16.65 It is further submitted that prosecution led weak and insufficient evidence and had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. It is further submitted that the accused was supposed to establish the preponderance of probabilities regarding his defence and prosecution was supposed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused persons established the preponderance of probabilities regarding their defence and prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
16.66 It is further submitted that statement of accused persons U/s 50 of PMLA has not evidentiary value in case where the accused is in custody in another case. It is further submitted that the prosecution has relied upon the plea of guilt of the five girls accused in ITP case. However, the said plea of guilt cannot be taken against the accused persons in the present case. It is further submitted that the ED had advanced illogical arguments that a person who was having three rented accommodation had taken the rented accommodation for running the brothel house without any basis or evidence. It is further submitted that Income Tax record of the accused persons were filed in very limited manner, in a selective manner shutting the narration of the prosecution contrary to the law.
SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 70 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 16:01:09 +0530 16.67 It is further submitted that witness Swapan Bose gave wrong statement that accused Shiv Murat was paying a premium of Rs. 50,000/- with respect to the LIC policies. However, factually the total value of the policy was Rs. 50,000/-. It is further submitted that total amount of Rs. 2,74,277/- were found in the account of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi. It is further submitted that the premium of one of the policy was Rs. 1621/- quarterly and for the other policy was Rs. 1715/- half yearly and third policy Metlife Insurance Policy was a health insurance policy complementary given by Barclays Bank on opening of saving account.
16.68 It is further submitted that the premium of ICICI Prudential Insurance was only paid once and then it had lapsed. It is further submitted that Honda City Car was purchased on loan against the down payment of sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- by the accused and his family and rest of the amount was financed from HDFC Bank for loan terms period of five years with EMI of Rs. 13,000/- pm out of which Rs. 2,50,000/- is still remain to be paid alongwith interest.
16.69 It is further submitted that the property of Jawahar Park was purchased in the year 2003 and its second floor was built up in the year 2003 on 25 sqr yards at the cost of Rs. 60,000/- and third floor was constructed in the year 2004 on 25 sqr yards and cost of Rs. 70,000/- was incurred upon it, the fourth floor was constructed in the year 2006, one portion of only 15 sqr yards and the cost was incurred for sum of Rs. 10,000/-, therefore, the total cost spent on the property was Rs. 3,25,000/- spent over a period of 3-4 years.
SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 71 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 16:01:18 +0530 16.70 It is further submitted that accused has ancestral agricultural land measuring 70 bigha in his native village Chamroha District Chitrakut, U.P and he was having agricultural income. It is further submitted that accused is also maintaining Mango orchard and cattle dairy and accused also drives monthly income of Rs. 35-50 thousand per month from religious activities.
16.71 It is submitted on behalf of accused persons Shiv Murat and Parveen that the amount as allegedly found to be deposited in the respective accounts of the accused persons were credited during the duration of almost ten years and it is not practically possible to explain the each and every detail of the said ten years.
16.72 It is further submitted that the said deposits were not huge deposits and so the same cannot be termed as proceeds of the crime generated from the alleged offence committed under ITP Act.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED PRAVEEN KUMAR/DEFENCE, THROUGH LD COUNSEL FOR DEFENCE
17. It is submitted that as per the prosecution complaint, the accused Parveen had started the profession of prostitution in the year 2008, so the property if any acquired by the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi prior to 2008 cannot be termed as property accumulating qua the accused Parveen Kumar for the purposes of proceeds of the crime.
17.1 It is further submitted that till the year 2008, the accused Parveen Kumar was having two movable properties i.e. one santro second hand car valued Rs. 2.50 lacs and one Honda SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 72 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2025.11.19 16:01:28 +0530 City second hand car for Rs. 6.5 lacs and these properties cannot be considered as proceeds of the crime since these properties were purchased prior to the year 2008. It is further submitted that in all the three statements of the accused Parveen Kumar recorded U/s 50 of PMLA,2002, the accused Parveen Kumar had not stated that prior to the arrest of the accused Parveen Kumar in FIR No. 47/2010, he was in any manner known to the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi i.e. 26.10.2010.
17.2 It is further submitted that there was no material on record that accused persons Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar were known to each other prior to Jan. 2010 i.e. through CDR, bank statements and joint properties. It is further submitted that after 2009, the prosecution has not shown that accused Parveen Kumar had purchased any property from the proceeds of the crime.
17.3 It is further submitted that prosecution has relied upon the ITR of the accused Parveen for the year 2006 and at that time, the accused was working as tempo driver and was not in a business of prostitution in any manner, so the said ITR has no consequence in relation to the present case.
17.4 It is further submitted that total residual amount was Rs. One Lakh only in entire seven bank accounts of the accused during the relevant period and the same cannot be covered within the purview of PMLA in any manner.
17.5 It is further submitted that total amount from the bank account of the accused Parveen Kumar never went more than Rs. 5 Lakh during the relevant period. It is further submitted that the insurance policies of the accused Parveen had SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 73 RAVINDRA Digitally RAVINDRA signed by KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 16:01:39 +0530 already lapsed prior to the arrest of the accused in FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket since he was unable to pay the premium amount. It is further submitted that the properties of the accused were already under attachment by the police under MCOC Act and the PAO proceeding were incorrectly initiated by the ED.
17.6 It is further submitted that accused Parveen Kumar has no connection with any of the three brothels as alleged by the prosecution neither any record was produced during the trial. It is further submitted that the document collected during the investigation of MCOCA case cannot be referred for the purposes of prosecution in the present case. It is further submitted that the predicate offence in the present case is ITP and not the MCOCA case. It is further submitted that MCOCA was invoked not on the basis of ITP case but because of five other previous cases against the accused Shiv Murat which were prior to the period of 2008.
It is further submitted that accused Parveen is innocent and he was falsely implicated in the present case, so he is entitled for acquittal for offence punishable U/s 4 of the PMLA read with Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002.
18. Heard the submission of both the parties. Perused the record of the chargesheet including the statement of witnesses and other material placed on record.
THE REASON FOR DECISION
19. In order to prove the charge of offence punishable U/s 4 of the PMLA, 2002 as defined U/s 3 of the PMLA, 2002 regarding the allegation that accused persons Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar had generated, derived, obtained and accumulated the proceeds of the crime from the commission SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 74 RAVINDRA Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 16:01:54 +0530 of the offence in the predicate offence of FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of public witnesses PW1 Dushyant Phogaat and public witness PW2 Gurmeet Singh Kochar. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW5 Retd. ACP Sh. Mehar Singh regarding the aspect of the investigation conducted in FIR no. 47/2010 PS Saket. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of IO Swapan Bose and examined him as PW6 who had conducted the investigation of the case. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of Hemant Gupta, the then Deputy Director who had passed the Provisional Attachment Order with respect to the properties of the accused persons Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar.
19.1 The prosecution witness PW1 Dushyant Phogaat was the landlord of the premises bearing H.No. 130, Humyunpur Village, New Delhi which was allegedly rented in the name of accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi against the monthly rent of Rs. 6000/-. It is alleged that accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi was using the said premises as a place for running the prostitution racket as alleged in FIR no. 47/2010 PS Saket. During the cross examination of PW1, it came on record that the said property was used by one Santosh Pandit who used to perform Pooja and Hawan in that premises. It also came on record that no complaint with respect to the use of said premises was made to the witness by any person of the locality regarding its alleged use for running the prostitution racket by the accused persons. During cross examination of PW1, it also came on record that ED officials had suggested the witness to give the statement in particular manner and due to the same reason, he gave the statement Ex. PW1/A. SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 75 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 16:02:05 +0530 The testimony of PW1 Dushyant Phogaat failed to bring any incriminating evidence against the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar and on contrary, it establishes the fact that witness PW1 was influenced by the investigating agency to give the statement in particular manner.
19.2 The other public witness Gurmeet Singh Kochar was the witness of the prosecution regarding the alleged use of the rented premises by the accused Parveen bearing no. O-5, C.R Park, New Delhi as a premises for running the prostitution racket. However, from the deposition of the PW-2 Gurmeet Singh Kochar, it came on record that he was informed by the police regarding the alleged use of the said premises for running prostitution racket by accused Parveen and he himself did not witness the incident of running the alleged prostitution racket by the accused Parveen in the said premises. The witness also failed to identity the accused Parveen as the same person who was rented with the premises bearing no. O-5, C.R Park, New Delhi.
19.3 The prosecution has failed to bring on record any incriminating evidence through the testimony of public witness PW2 with respect to the alleged use of the premises bearing no. O-5, C.R Park, New Delhi for running the prostitution racket by the accused persons.
19.4 The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW5 Retd. ACP Sh. Mehar Singh who was examined on application of the prosecution agency after the death of PW3 Retd. ACP Sh. Pankaj Singh who had investigated the case FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket. The witness PW5 had identified the document as prepared by IO Pankaj Singh of the FIR No. SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 76 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 16:02:13 +0530 47/2010 PS Saket. During the cross examination of the witness PW5, it came on record that witness PW5 did not replied to the questions regarding the bank detail of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and alleged deposition of approximately Rs. 1.5 Crore in his account or its related transactions. He also replied that he did not had any detail of investigation with respect to the generation of illegal money by the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi as investigated by the IO of FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket. The witness also deposed about the investigation related aspect of the FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket during his cross examination. However, the same is not relevant with respect to the present case as the FIR No. 54/2010 PS Saket is not the predicate offence of the present case. No material incriminating evidence came on record from the testimony of PW5 regarding the alleged generation of the proceeds of crime by the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar from the commission of offence as committed in FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket.
19.5 The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW4 Hemant Gupta who was the the then Deputy Director of the investigating agency ED and who had passed the Provisional Attachment Order Ex. PW4/A bearing no. 9/2015 dated 28.03.2015. However, during cross examination of the witness PW4, witness failed to reply that what basic inquiry as conducted by him prior to passing the Provisional Attachment Order against the accused persons Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar. The witness also gave evasive replies with respect to the inquiry conducted by him regarding the bank account, insurance policy detail, movable and immovable assets of the accused persons and he simply replied that he was not SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 77 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2025.11.19 16:02:39 +0530 remembering the same in vague manner. Apart from identifying the Provisional Attachment Order Ex. PW4/A by the witness PW4, no other incriminating material came on record against the accused persons Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar through the testimony of witness PW4 to establish that accused persons generated the proceeds of the crime by the commission of offence as alleged in FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket.
19.6 It also came on record from the testimony of PW4 that IO Swapan Bose did not produce the details of the assets of the female accused persons who were accused in FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket at the time of proposal for Provisional Attachment Order placed before the witness PW4. He also did not reply as to whether he had conducted any inquiry from the IO that IO had investigated the role of the other six female accused persons, their assets and properties in respect of FIR No. 47/2010 PS Saket i.e. the predicate offence. It also came on record that no verification was done either by the IO or by the witness PW4 regarding the alleged monetary transaction or movable or immovable assets of the accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar regarding the allegation of accumulation of the proceeds of the crime by the accused persons.
19.7 It appears that no independent inquiry was conducted either by witness PW4 or by the IO PW6 and they had solely relied upon the documents of the police without conducting their own inquiry regarding the aspect of money laundering as defined U/s 3 of the PMLA, 2002.
19.8 The prosecution has heavily relied upon the testimony of IO/Swapan Bose/PW-6 in order to prove the charge SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 78 RAVINDRA Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 16:02:47 +0530 of offence punishable U/s 4 of the PMLA, 2002 as defined U/s 3 of the PMLA, 2002. However, during cross examination of the witness PW6/IO Swapan Bose, it came on record that he had not verified about the alleged crime syndicate for running the business of sex trade. He had also not verified the CDR detail of the accused persons with his own in order to ascertain as to whether the accused persons Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Parveen Kumar were running the said syndicate jointly or individually. It also came on record that witness PW6/IO Swapan Bose did not conducted his own inquiry with respect to the alleged movable properties, immovable properties, vehicle, insurance policies and other assets of the accused persons and he had vaguely replied during his cross examination regarding the investigation carried out by him regarding the alleged proceeds of crime accumulated by the accused persons.
19.9 It also came on record that witness PW6/IO did not verified that in what manner the alleged funds were deposited in the account of accused persons and what were its sources and how it were transferred from other account to the account of the accused persons or deposited in the account of the accused persons. It also came on record that the valuation of the immovable assets of the accused persons were not conducted independently and the valuer was not examined as a witness in the present case by the prosecution.
19.10 It also came on record during the cross examination of witness PW6 that witness failed to give the accurate picture about the bank accounts, cars, financial transactions, assets, movable and immovable properties, Jawahar Park house and other ancestral properties of the accused persons. It appears that SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 79 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 PANDEY 16:02:53 +0530 witness had not investigated independently and had only relied upon the documents as collected from the investigating officer/agency of FIR no. 47/2010 PS Saket.
20. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the considered view that the charges of offence punishable U/s 4 of the PMLA, 2002 as defined U/s 3 of the PMLA, 2002 has not been proved against the accused persons Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar. Hence, accused Shiv Murat Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar are acquitted from the present case and from the charge of offence punishable U/s 4 of the PMLA, 2002 as defined U/s 3 of the PMLA, 2002.
21. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA Digitally signed KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Announced in the open Court, PANDEY Date: 2025.11.19 16:02:58 +0530 On 19th November, 2025. (Ravindra Kumar Pandey) ASJ:03/South/Saket Courts, New Delhi SC No. 6594/2016; ED Vs. Shiv Murat Dwivedi & Parveen Kumar: ECIR No. ECIR/53/DLZO/2010: page no. 80