Chhavi Ranjan vs Union Of India Though The Directorate Of ... on 22 March, 2024

[Cites 70, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Chhavi Ranjan vs Union Of India Though The Directorate Of ... on 22 March, 2024

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                           1




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  B.A. No. 9247 of 2023
                            ------

Chhavi Ranjan, S/o. Sh. R.D. Pandit, Aged about 42 years, R/o 2/4 Senior Officers‟ Colony, P.O. Morabadi, Booti Road, Ranchi University, Ranchi, P.S. Bariatu, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand ............Petitioner Versus Union of India though the Directorate of Enforcement, represented by Assistant Director, Ranchi Zonal Office, Plot No. 1502/B, Airport Road, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi, Ranchi, Jharkhand ..............Respondent

-------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-------

For the Petitioner : Mr.Indrajit Sinha, Advocate [Through V.C] Mr. Rishav Raj, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Choudhary, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr.Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate [ASGI] Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate

------

C.A.V. on 01/03/2024 Pronounced on 22/03/2024 Prayer:

1. The instant application has been filed under Section 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for grant of bail in ECIR Case No.01 of 2023 arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022 [corresponding to Bariatu P.S. Case No.141 of 2022] for offences of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I cum Special Judge, Ranchi.

Prosecution Case:

2. The prosecution story, in brief, as per the allegation made in the instant ECIR/complaint reads as under:

3. An ECIR bearing No. 18/2022 was recorded on the basis of the FIR bearing No. 141 of 2022 [Bariatu P.S.] dated 04.06.2022, lodged at Bariatu police station, Ranchi Jharkhand under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against one Pradeep Bagchi on the basis of complaint of one Sri Dilip Sharma, Tax Collector, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, for submission of forged papers i.e., Aadhar Card, Electricity Bill and Possession letter for obtaining holding number 0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5. Investigation revealed that by submitting the forged documents, a holding number was obtained in name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19, Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring 455.00 decimals approx. at Ranchi.

4. Investigation further revealed that the above property belonged to Late B.M. Laxman Rao which was given to the Army and had been in the possession of the Defence, in occupation of the Army since independence. Investigation also reveals that by way of creating a fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was sold to a company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for which the consideration amount was shown Rs. 7 crores which was 3 highly under value and out of this amount payment amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only were made into the account of said Pradeep Bagchi and rest of the money was falsely shown to be paid through cheques in the deed no.- 6888 of 2021.

5. It has come during investigation that records available at the Circle Officer, Bargain, Ranchi along with the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata have been altered and records have been modified. The survey of Circle Office Bargain as well as Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata transpires that documents have been tempered to create fictitious owner of the above properties.

6. The Enforcement Directorate upon completion of investigation filed the prosecution complaint under Section 45 read with Section 44 of PML Act being ECIR Case no.

01/2023.

7. Pursuant thereto, on 13.04.2023 the house of the petitioner, who is an officer of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) was searched in connection with investigation in ECIR/RNZO/18/2022. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested in this case on the allegation that he misused his official position as Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (DC, Ranchi) to facilitate the fraudulent transfer of property in question.

8. Thereafter, the present petitioner preferred Misc. Cri. Application No. 2004 of 2023 for grant of bail which was rejected vide order dated 08.08.2023 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I cum Special Judge, Ranchi.

9. Hence the present petition has been preferred for the grant of bail.

Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

10. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeking relief for grant of bail has inter alia taken following grounds:

I. The order of remand is bad since the remand is based upon the allegation of transfer of land of the Cheshire Home while it would be evident from the order of remand dated 05.05.2023 that the Court has taken into consideration the other distinct properties also as mentioned in para 7 to 17 of the application of remand. Further even as per the case of the Enforcement Directorate, the ground of arrest is only the involvement of the petitioner in illegal transfer of the land of Cheshire Home of Khata No. 256 Plot Nos. 891 and 893, Mauza Bargai, but it would be evident from the order of remand wherein the reference of distinct properties has been made.

Hence, as per requirement of Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002, the remaining ground of arrest, as 5 has been taken note of in the order of remand, since is not available in the communication made at the time of arrest hence the arrest itself is illegal not in consonance with the provision of Section 19(1) of the PML Act, 2002.

II. The consequential argument has also been advanced that since the remand order itself is bad and illegal and hence the very custody of the petitioner is bad in the eye of law.

III. Therefore, submission has been made that the law is well settled that if the foundation will go the subsequent action will also collapse.

IV. Further ground has been taken that the ECIR has been said to be recorded on 21.10.2022 while the alleged transfer of the land in question is prior to the aforesaid ECIR and hence it cannot be said to be predicate offence on the basis of definition of „proceeds of crime' reason being that the proceeds of crime will only be said to be attracted if any proceeds has been acquired by one or the other on account of the property in question, and in the case at hand if the entire complaint will be considered there is nothing on record to suggest that any benefit had been obtained by the petitioner said to come under the fold of „proceeds of crime'.

V. The main allegation, as has been leveled with respect to commission of crime, is of fabricating the record of rights having been done on the direction of the present petitioner, who happens to be the Deputy Commissioner but even accepting the said allegation to be correct then also the same can only be said to be irregularity on the part of the petitioner in discharging his official duty, which cannot come under the fold of Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002.

VI. It has been submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is taken to be true then also, at best, the case of the petitioner will be said to be a commission of crime of committing forgery which cannot be said to attract the penal offence under the PML Act, 2002.

VII. Learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the aforesaid fact has submitted that there is no legal evidence but even then, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 05.05.2023.

VIII. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued by putting reliance upon provision of Section 2 (v) and (za) of the PML Act, 2002 which defines „property‟ and „transfer‟.

IX. According to learned counsel "property" means any property or assets of every description, whether 7 corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located; and further transfer includes sale, purchase, mortgage, pledge, gift, loan or any other form of transfer of right, title, possession or lien.

X. It has been submitted that if these two definitions will be taken into consideration and thereafter if the complaint prosecution story will be considered it would be evident that there is no iota of allegation against the petitioner that the property in question has been transferred and hence the petitioner is not in any way related with the commission of offence under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002.

XI. The argument has also been advanced that it is not a case of concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting as an untainted property or claiming as an untainted property as per the Explanation No.l, as provided under PML Act, 2002.

XII. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the judgment by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929and Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and 8 Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 as also the reference of judgment of United Kingdom in the case of Regina Vs. GH [(2015) UKSC 24].

XIII. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Chinna Gowda Vs. State of Mysore [(1963) 2 SCR 617] and Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana & Ors [(2023) 9 SCC 587].

XIV. Learned counsel for the petitioner based upon the aforesaid ground has vehemently argued that it is a fit case where the petitioner is fit to be released from judicial custody taking into consideration that he is languishing in judicial custody for his no fault rather on the ground of failing to discharge his official duty, even though there is no ingredient of Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002.

Argument on behalf of Respondent-ED:

11. Per contra, Mr. Anil Kumar, [learned senior counsel] learned ASGI appearing for the respondent-ED has taken the following ground in opposition:

I. Petitioner is directly involved in commission of crime in facilitating in „proceeds of crime‟ by another co-

accused persons i.e., proprietor of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Amit Kumar 9 Agarwal, Pradip Bagchi, Afshar Ali, Mohd. Saddam Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed, Taha Khan, Faiyaz Ahmed, Bhanu Pratap Prasad, M/s Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Aurora Studio Pvt. Ltd.

II. It has been submitted by referring to Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 wherein the mandates provides that involvement if indirectly is there, in furtherance in commission of crime, then also Section 3 of the PML Act will be applicable. Herein, the petitioner being the Deputy Commissioner (the then DC, Ranchi) has facilitated in commission of crime through said Pradeep Bagchi to give benefit to the Amit Kumar Agarwal in disposal of the land in question in his favour in the name of one firm, M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., as would be evident from prosecution report, as available in the ECIR.

III. The „proceeds of crime' has been defined under PML Act, 2002 whichmeans any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of such property or where property is taken or held outside the country.

IV. It has been submitted that the petitioner being the Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned has not only mis-utilized his official position but also he 10 has facilitated in commission of crimeby disposal of the aforesaid land in the meager rate lesser than the government notified rate and while doing so the document has been fabricated by one of the co-

accused person, Pradeep Bagchi.

V. It has been alleged that the petitioner has also mis-

utilized his official position by directing the Circle Officer, namely, Manoj Kumar, who even had cancelled the mutation under its competence under Section 14 of the Bihar Tenant‟s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as Act, 1973] wherein the Deputy Commissioner has got no original power and he is only the appellate authority but under his influence the petitioner subsequently managed to procure favourable report for Pradeep Bagchi and the property was subsequently acquired in a dishonest manner in the name of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd.

VI. Further, it would be evident from the prosecution complaint that the present petitioner, in the capacity of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, has also directed the Sub-Registrar, District Land Registry Office, Ranchi to get the land registered. It has been submitted that under the notification of the Government, the Deputy Commissioner is also the 11 District Registrar but as per the delegation of power the Deputy Commissioner in the capacity of District Registrar has got no power to register the land rather the power is vested with the Sub-Registrar of the concerned district land registration office but even then, the petitioner has interfered with the affairs of Sub-registrar for the purpose of getting the land registered in favour of accused persons.

VII. These activities of the petitioner in the capacity of Deputy Commissioner cannot be said to be in discharge of official duty rather it is only in connivance with the other accused persons, namely, Pradeep Bagchi, Amit Kumar Agarwal and others who are ultimate beneficiary and hence it can well be concluded that due to illegal act of the petitioner the other accused persons have got the valuable property in meager amount and the same has been deposited in the accounts of the company, which is owned by Amit Kumar Agarwal.

VIII. It has also come that the petitioner has got close relationship with accused- Amit Kumar Agarwal and others, otherwise there would not have been any occasion in the capacity of Deputy Commissioner to get involved in illegal transaction of land.

IX.It has been contended in response to the submission that the Deputy Commissioner has only discharged his duty cannot be said to be correct as the moment the petitioner posted as Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi he being the custodian of the entire administrative affairs and hence if he has acted mala fide the same cannot be said to be in discharge of official duty.

Furthermore, whatever instruction/direction has been given to Mr. Manoj Kumar, the then Circle Officer, Bargai and Mr. Ghasi Ram Pingua, the then Sub-

Registrar, Ranchi the same cannot be said to be within his official domain. All these things have been committed by the petitioner only to facilitate the other accused persons the propriety of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., namely, Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Amit Kumar Agarwal, Pradip Bagchi and others.

X.The argument therefore has been made by referring to the provision of Section 3 of the PML Act that if there is any direct or indirect involvement of the person concerned, he will also be said to have committed the offence under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 and exactly the case of the petitioner herein.

XI.The argument has been advanced so far as the applicability of various paragraphs of judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay 13 Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) is concerned i.e., 251, 252, 253, 269, 270, 272, 273, 280 and 281, which has been taken aid of that the allegation cannot be said to be the „proceeds of crime‟ but it has been submitted that if the entire prosecution complaint will be taken into consideration the same will be said to be proceeds of crime wherein the petitioner has been found to be directly involved in transfer of the land what to say about his indirect involvement.

XII. So far as argument advanced on behalf of petitioner that since there is no allegation of acquisition of property, as such the provisions of PML Act, 2002 will not be applicable and in order to strengthen his argument the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon different paragraphs of the judgment as rendered in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors.

Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) as also the Explanation part of Section 3 of PML Act, submission has been made by learned counsel for the respondent-

ED that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner that no offence under Section 3 of the PML Act has been committed as Section 3 of the PML Act starts from the word whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or 14 is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent-ED based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is not a fit case for grant of regular bail in favour of the petitioner. Analysis:

13. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the argument advanced on behalf of parties as also the judgments relied upon by the parties and other materials available on record.

14. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to first discuss herein some of the provision of law as contained under the PML Act, 2002 along with its object and intent with judicial pronouncements.

Provision of law as contained under the PML Act, 2002 along with its object and intent:

15. The Act was enacted to address the urgent need to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof including vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of agencies and mechanisms for coordinating measures for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons 15 indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. The issues were debated threadbare in the United Nation Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Basle Statement of Principles enunciated in 1989, the FATF established at the summit of seven major industrial nations held in Paris from 14th to 16th July, 1989, the Political Declaration and Noble Programme of Action adopted by United Nations General Assembly vide its Resolution No. S-17/2 of 23.2.1990, the United Nations in the Special Session on countering World Drug Problem Together concluded on the 8th to the 10th June, 1998, urging the State parties to enact a comprehensive legislation. This is evident from the introduction and Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Bill which became the 2002 Act. The same reads thus:

"INTRODUCTION Money-laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of countries, but also to their integrity and sovereignty. To obviate such threats international community has taken some initiatives. It has been felt that to prevent money-laundering and connected activities a comprehensive legislation is urgently needed. To achieve this objective the Prevention of Money-laundering Bill, 1998 was introduced in the Parliament. The Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, which presented its report on 4th March, 1999 to the Lok Sabha. The Central Government broadly accepted the recommendation of the Standing Committee and incorporated them in the said Bill along with some other desired changes.

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS It is being realised, world over, that money-laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of countries, but also to their integrity and sovereignty. Some of the initiatives taken by the international community to obviate such threat are outlined below:--

(a) the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, to which India is a party, calls for prevention of laundering of proceeds of drug crimes and other connected activities and confiscation of proceeds derived from such offence.

(b) the Basle Statement of Principles, enunciated in 1989, outlined basic policies and procedures that banks should follow in order to assist the law enforcement agencies in tackling the problem of money-laundering.

(c) the Financial Action Task Force established at the summit of seven major industrial nations, held in Paris from 14th to 16th July, 1989, to examine the problem of money-laundering has made forty recommendations, which provide the foundation material forcomprehensive legislation to combat the problem of money-laundering. The recommendations were classified under various heads. Some of the important heads are--

(i) declaration of laundering of monies carried through serious crimes a criminal offence;

(ii) to work out modalities of disclosure by financial institutions regarding reportable transactions;

(iii) confiscation of the proceeds of crime;

(iv) declaring money-laundering to be an extraditable offence; and

(v) promoting international co-operation in investigation of money-laundering.

(d) the Political Declaration and Global Programme of Action adopted by United Nations General Assembly by its Resolution No. S-17/2 of 23rd February, 1990, inter alia, calls upon the member States to develop mechanism to prevent financial institutions from being used for laundering of drug related money and enactment of legislation to prevent such laundering.

(e) the United Nations in the Special Session on countering 17 World Drug Problem Together concluded on the 8th to the 10th June, 1998 has made another declaration regarding the need to combat money-laundering. India is a signatory to this declaration."

18.It is thus evident that the Act, 2002 was enacted in order to answer the urgent requirement to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money- laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

19.It needs to refer herein the definition of "proceeds of crime" as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:

"2(u)"proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property 3[or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] 4[or abroad]; [Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence;]"

20. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the 18 value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad.

21. In the explanation it has been referred that for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. The aforesaid explanation has been inserted in the statute book by way of Act 23 of 2019.

22. It is, thus, evident that the reason for giving explanation under Section 2(1)(u) is by way of clarification to the effect that whether as per the substantive provision of Section 2(1)(u), the property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country but by way of explanation the proceeds of crime has been given broader implication by including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. 19

23. The "property" has been defined under Section 2(1)(v) which means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located.

24. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x) which means schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The "scheduled offence" has been defined under Section 2(1)(y) which reads as under:

"2(y) "scheduled offence" means-- (i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule."

25. It is evident that the "scheduled offence" means the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule.

26. The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:

"3. Offence of money-laundering.--Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the [proceeds of crime including its 20 concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. [Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,-- (i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, namely:-- (a) concealment; or (b) possession; or (c) acquisition; or (d) use; or (e) projecting as untainted property; or (f) claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever; (ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.]"

27. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that "offence of money-laundering" means whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.

28. It is further evident that the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as 21 untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.

29. The punishment for money laundering has been provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002. 30. Section 50 of the Act, 2002 confers power upon the authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence. For ready reference, Section 50 of the Act, 2002 is quoted as under:

"50. Powers of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence, etc.--(1) The Director shall, for the purposes of section 13, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:-- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a [reporting entity] and examining him on oath; (c) compelling the production of records; (d) receiving evidence on affidavits; (e) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses and documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed. (2) The Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary whether to give evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. (3) All the persons so summoned shall be bound to attend in person or through authorised agents, as such officer may direct, and shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements, and produce such documents as may be required. (4) Every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (5) Subject to any rules made in this behalf by the Central Government, any officer referred to in sub-section (2) may impound and retain in his custody for such period, as he thinks fit, any records produced 22 before him in any proceedings under this Act: Provided that an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director shall not-- (a) impound any records without recording his reasons for so doing; or (b) retain in his custody any such records for a period exceeding three months, without obtaining the previous approval of the [Joint Director]."

Judicial Pronouncement on the issue involved:

30. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 alongwith interpretation of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has been dealt with by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein the Bench comprising of Three Hon‟ble Judges of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court have decided the issue by taking into consideration the object and intent of the Act, 2002.

31. The interpretation of the condition which is to be fulfilled while arresting the person involved in the predicate offence has been made as would appear from paragraph

265. For ready reference, relevant paragraphs is being referred as under:

"265. To put it differently, the section as it stood prior to 2019 had itself incorporated the expression "including", which is indicative of reference made to the different process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the principal provision (as also the Explanation) predicates that if a person is found to be directly or indirectly involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime must be held guilty of offence of moneylaundering. If the interpretation set forth by the petitioners was to be accepted, it would follow that it is only upon projecting or claiming the property in 23 question as untainted property, the offence would be complete. This would undermine the efficacy of the legislative intent behind Section 3 of the Act and also will be in disregard of the view expressed by the FATF in connection with the occurrence of the word "and" preceding the expression "projecting or claiming" therein. This Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, enunciated that the international treaties, covenants and conventions although may not be a part of municipal law, the same be referred to and followed by the Courts having regard to the fact that India is a party to the said treaties. This Court went on to observe that the Constitution of India and other ongoing statutes have been read consistently with the rules of international law. It is also observed that the Constitution of India and the enactments made by Parliament must necessarily be understood in the context of the present-day scenario and having regard to the international treaties and convention as our constitution takes note of the institutions of the world community which had been created. In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, the Court observed that domestic Courts are under an obligation to give due regard to the international conventions and norms for construing the domestic laws, more so, when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in domestic law. This view has been restated in Githa Hariharan, as also in People's Union for Civil Liberties, and National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India."

32. The implication of Section 50 has also been taken into consideration. Relevant paragraph, i.e., paragraphs- 422, 424, 425, 431, 434 read as under:

"422. The validity of this provision has been challenged on the ground of being violative of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. For, it allows the authorised officer under the 2002 Act to summon any person and record his statement during the course of investigation. Further, the provision mandates that the person should disclose true and correct facts known to his personal knowledge in connection with the 24 subject matter of investigation. The person is also obliged to sign the statement so given with the threat of being punished for the falsity or incorrectness thereof in terms of Section 63 of the 2002 Act. Before we proceed to analyse the matter further, it is apposite to reproduce Section 50 of the 2002 Act, as amended. -----:

424. By this provision, the Director has been empowered to exercise the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the 1908 Code while trying a suit in respect of matters specified in sub-section (1). This is in reference to Section 13 of the 2002 Act dealing with powers of Director to impose fine in respect of acts of commission and omission by the banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries. From the setting in which Section 50 has been placed and the expanse of empowering the Director with same powers as are vested in a civil Court for the purposes of imposing fine under Section 13, is obviously very specific and not otherwise.

425. Indeed, sub-section (2) of Section 50 enables the Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director to issue summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. We have already highlighted the width of expression "proceeding" in the earlier part of this judgment and held that it applies to proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court, as the case may be. Nevertheless, sub-section (2) empowers the authorised officials to issue summon to any person. We fail to understand as to how Article 20(3) would come into play in respect of process of recording statement pursuant to such summon which is only for the purpose of collecting information or evidence in respect of proceeding under this Act. Indeed, the person so summoned, is bound to attend in person or through authorised agent and to state truth upon any subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the 2002 Act. The criticism is essentially because of subsection (4) which 25 provides that every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. Even so, the fact remains that Article 20(3) or for that matter Section 25 of the Evidence Act, would come into play only when the person so summoned is an accused of any offence at the relevant time and is being compelled to be a witness against himself. This position is well-established. The Constitution Bench of this Court in M.P. Sharma had dealt with a similar challenge wherein warrants to obtain documents required for investigation were issued by the Magistrate being violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. This Court opined that the guarantee in Article 20(3) is against "testimonial compulsion"

and is not limited to oral evidence. Not only that, it gets triggered if the person is compelled to be a witness against himself, which may not happen merely because of issuance of summons for giving oral evidence or producing documents. Further, to be a witness is nothing more than to furnish evidence and such evidence can be furnished by different modes. The Court went on to observe as follows: "Broadly stated the guarantee in article 20(3) is against "testimonial compulsion". It is suggested that this is confined to the oral evidence of a person standing his trial for an offence when called to the witness-stand. We can see no reason to confine the content of the constitutional guarantee to this barely literal import. So to limit it would be to rob the guarantee of its substantial purpose and to miss the substance for the sound as stated in certain American decisions. The phrase used in Article 20(3) is "to be a witness". A person can "be a witness"

not merely by giving oral evidence but also by producing documents or making intelligible gestures as in the case of a dumb witness (See section 119 of the Evidence Act) or the like. "To be a witness" is nothing more than "to furnish evidence", and such evidence can be furnished through the lips or by production of a thing or of a document or in other modes. So far as production of documents is concerned, no doubt Section 139 of the Evidence Act says that a person producing a document on summons is not a witness. But that section is 26 meant to regulate the right of cross examination. It is not a guide to the connotation of the word "witness", which must be understood in its natural sense, i.e., as referring to a person who furnishes evidence. Indeed, every positive volitional act which furnishes evidence is testimony, and testimonial compulsion connotes coercion which procures the positive volitional evidentiary acts of the person, as opposed to the negative attitude of silence or submission on his part. Nor is there any reason to think that the protection in respect of the evidence so procured is confined to what transpires at the trial in the court room. The phrase used in article 20(3) is "to be a witness" and not to "appear as a witness". It follows that the protection afforded to an accused in so far as it is related to the phrase "to be a witness" is not merely in respect of testimonial compulsion in the court room but may well extend to compelled testimony previously obtained from him. It is available therefore to a person against whom a formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been levelled which in the normal course may result in prosecution. Whether it is available to other persons in other situations does not call for decision in this case." (emphasis supplied)

431. In the context of the 2002 Act, it must be remembered that the summon is issued by the Authority under Section 50 in connection with the inquiry regarding proceeds of crime which may have been attached and pending adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority. In respect of such action, the designated officials have been empowered to summon any person for collection of information and evidence to be presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is not necessarily for initiating a prosecution against the noticee as such. The power entrusted to the designated officials under this Act, though couched as investigation in real sense, is to undertake inquiry to ascertain relevant facts to facilitate initiation of or pursuing with an action regarding proceeds of crime, if the situation so warrants and for being presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is a different matter that the information and evidence so collated during the inquiry made, may disclose commission of offence of money-

laundering and the involvement of the person, who has been summoned for making disclosures pursuant to the summons issued by the Authority. At this stage, there would be no formal document indicative of likelihood of involvement of such person as an accused of offence of money laundering. If the statement made by him reveals the offence of money laundering or the existence of proceeds of crime, that becomes actionable under the Act itself. To put it differently, at the stage of recording of statement for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property being proceeds of crime is, in that sense, not an investigation for prosecution as such; and in any case, there would be no formal accusation against the noticee. Such summons can be issued even to witnesses in the inquiry so conducted by the authorised officials. However, after further inquiry on the basis of other material and evidence, the involvement of such person (noticee) is revealed, the authorised officials can certainly proceed against him for his acts of commission or omission. In such a situation, at the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, if his/her statement is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official, the consequences of Article 20(3) or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play to urge that the same being in the nature of confession, shall not be proved against him. Further, it would not preclude the prosecution from proceeding against such a person including for consequences under Section 63 of the 2002 Act on the basis of other tangible material to indicate the falsity of his claim. That would be a matter of rule of evidence.

434. It is, thus, clear that the power invested in the officials is one for conducting inquiry into the matters relevant for ascertaining existence of proceeds of crime and the involvement of persons in the process or activity connected therewith so as to initiate appropriate action against such person including of seizure, attachment and confiscation of the property eventually vesting in the Central Government."

33. It is evident from the observation so made as above that the purposes and objects of the 2002 Act for which it has been enacted, is not limited to punishment for offence of money-laundering, but also to provide measures for prevention of money-laundering. It is also to provide for attachment of proceeds of crime, which are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceeding relating to confiscation of such proceeds under the 2002 Act. This Act is also to compel the banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries to maintain records of the transactions, to furnish information of such transactions within the prescribed time in terms of Chapter IV of the 2002 Act.

34. The predicate offence has been considered in the aforesaid judgment wherein by taking into consideration the explanation as inserted by way of Act 23 of 2019 under the definition of the "proceeds of crime" as contained under Section 2(1)(u), whereby and whereunder, it has been clarified for the purpose of removal of doubts that, the "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence, meaning thereby, the words "any property which 29 may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence"

will come under the fold of the proceeds of crime.

35. So far as the purport of Section 45(1)(i)(ii) is concerned, the aforesaid provision starts from the non- obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless -

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given a opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

36. Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting bail specific in subsection (1) in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

37. The explanation is also there as under sub-section (2) thereof which is for the purpose of removal of doubts. A clarification has been inserted that the expression "Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable offences and non- bailable offences notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and 30 accordingly the officers authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfilment of conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions enshrined under this section.

38. The fact about the implication of Section 45 has been interpreted by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) at paragraphs-372-374.

39. For ready reference, the said paragraphs are being referred as under:

"372. Section 45 has been amended vide Act 20 of 2005, Act 13 of 2018 and Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. The provision as it obtained prior to 23.11.2017 read somewhat differently. The constitutional validity of Sub-section (1) of Section 45, as it stood then, was considered in Nikesh Tarachand Shah. This Court declared Section 45(1) of the 2002 Act, as it stood then, insofar as it imposed two further conditions for release on bail, to be unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The two conditions which have been mentioned as twin conditions are: (i) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

373. According to the petitioners, since the twin conditions have been declared to be void and unconstitutional by this Court, the same stood obliterated. To buttress this argument, reliance has been placed on the dictum in State of Manipur.

374. The first issue to be answered by us is: whether the twin conditions, in law, continued to remain on the statute book post decision of this Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah and if yes, in view of the amendment effected to Section 45(1) of the 2002 Act vide Act 13 of 2018, the declaration by this Court will be of no consequence. This argument need not detain us for long. We say 31 so because the observation in State of Manipur in paragraph 29 of the judgment that owing to the declaration by a Court that the statute is unconstitutional obliterates the statute entirely as though it had never been passed, is contextual. In this case, the Court was dealing with the efficacy of the repealing Act. While doing so, the Court had adverted to the repealing Act and made the stated observation in the context of lack of legislative power. In the process of reasoning, it did advert to the exposition in BehramKhurshidPesikaka and Deep Chand including American jurisprudence expounded in Cooley on Constitutional Limitations and Norton v. Shelby County."

40. Subsequently, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra), has laid down that since the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory, they need to be complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further been observed that as per the statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under 32 Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in view of the overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, under Section 71 of the PML Act.

41. For ready reference, paragraph-17 of the said judgment is quoted as under:

"17. As well settled by now, the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory. They need to be complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is needless to say that as per the statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of 17 A.B.A. No. 10671 of 2023 crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in view of the overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, under Section 71 of the PML Act."

42. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the said judgment has further laid down that the „twin conditions' as to fulfil the requirement of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 before granting the benefit of bail is to be adhered to which has been dealt with by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal 33 Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) wherein it has been observed that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

43. In the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) as under paragraph 284, it has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of "proceeds of crime". Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken to forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is concerned, as has been referred hereinabove, at paragraph-412 of the judgment rendered in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) it has been held therein by making observation that whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, 34 be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money- laundering.

44. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at paragraph - 30 that the conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA. Section 65 requires that the provisions of Cr.P.C shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.

45. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 CrPC. That coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the appellant. For ready reference, paragraph-30 of the said judgment reads as under:

"30. The conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA. Section 65 requires that the provisions of CrPC shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 CrPC. That coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the appellant."

46. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid paragraph, as has been dealt with by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the aforesaid 36 paragraph as referred hereinabove that the ground of arrest is to be communicated to the concerned as soon as possible as per the statutory provision as referred in Section 19(1) of the PML Act, 2002. The said part of the statutory provision has been taken note by holding therein that the communication is to be oral or written and by which time.The Hon‟ble Apex Court has also clarified that any communication may also be oral or written and the same is to be communicated at least 24 hours from the time of arrest.

47. Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002 is relevant to be discussed herein because the same has been taken as ground for release of petitioner on bail by advancing the argument if the complaint only cognizance has been taken only against the transfer of one piece of land of Cheshire land but subsequently the three pieces of land has also been added hence the arrest cannot be said to be in consonance withthe parameter as provided under Section

19. Discussion on the argument advanced by the parties:

48. Now, after having discussed the judgments passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court on the issue of various provisions of the Act, 2002, this Court, is now proceeding to answer the legal grounds as has been raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

49. It has been informed that the petitioner has also filed an application for grant of compulsory bail but the same is now pending before the Hon‟ble Apex Court.

50. It also needs to refer herein that Cr. Misc.

Application was also filed challenging the order of remand and since regular bail application was filed hence the said petition was not pressed with a liberty to take all the grounds at appropriate stage.

51. This Court before coming to the facts of the case thinks fit to the deal with the first issue i.e., the issue of remand as has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating the same to be bad in law, and hence requires to refer herein the interpretation of word „remand'.

52. It is pertinent to refer herein that under the Code of Criminal Procedure the word "remand" has not been defined. The concept of remand is in order to achieve the object of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in view of the provision as contained under Section 154 Cr.P.C. which deals with „Information in cognizable cases'. Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. provides that person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-four hours. It is for the purpose that there may not be any illegal detention and, as such, it has been provided that no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than 38 under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate‟s Court.

53. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case Manubhai Ratilal Patel through Ushaben v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 314 has categorically observed that while exercising this judicial act, it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to satisfy himself whether the materials placed before him justify such a remand or, to put it differently, whether there exist reasonable grounds to commit the accused to custody and extend his remand. For ready reference relevant paragraph of aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under

"24. The act of directing remand of an accused is fundamentally a judicial function. The Magistrate does not act in executive capacity while ordering the detention of an accused. While exercising this judicial act, it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to satisfy himself whether the materials placed before him justify such a remand or, to put it differently, whether there exist reasonable grounds to commit the accused to custody and extend his remand. The purpose of remand as postulated under Section 167 is that investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. It enables the Magistrate to see that the remand is really necessary. This requires the investigating agency to send the case diary along with the remand report so that the Magistrate can appreciate the factual scenario and apply his mind whether there is a warrant for police remand or justification for judicial remand or there is no need for any 39 remand at all. It is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to apply his mind and not to pass an order of remand automatically or in a mechanical manner.

25. It is apt to note that in Madhu Limaye, In re [(1969) 1 SCC 292 : AIR 1969 SC 1014] it has been stated that: (SCC p. 299, para 12) "12. Once it is shown that the arrests made by the police officers were illegal, it was necessary for the State to establish that at the stage of remand the Magistrate directed detention in jail custody after applying his mind to all relevant matters."

54. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the power conferred to the Court to remand a person in the judicial custody if there is imputation of prima facie case said to be committed under cognizable offence. The word „remand‟ bifurcates that whether the same is for one allegation or more than one allegation, rather irrespective of number of allegations even if a person has committed one offence and when said person is produced before the concerned court seeking remand then the court is to accept the remand by assigning the reason of remand.

55. It can be considered on different angle also supposed at the time of remand the basis of remand is only imputation and after remand there may be several imputations having been surfaced in course of investigation. Then it cannot be said that the order of remand since is based upon one imputation will be bad in the eye of law.

56. The remand court is to primarily see the availability of allegation of penal offence.

57. The ground has been taken that remand cannot be said to be proper since only on the basis of one allegation of facilitating in transfer of land to one Pradeep Bagchi but subsequently the other piece of lands have also been added and hence the order of remand is bad in the eyes of law.

58. The consequential argument has been made that the if the remand itself is bad then the custody of the petitioner is bad in the eye of law on the principle that that if the foundation will go the entire structure will collapse.

59. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that the if foundation will go the consequence will automatically be nullity in the eye of law. However, It needs to refer herein the settled position of law that the judgment is to be applied based upon the factual aspect governing each and every case as per the ratio laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu &Ors reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75. For ready reference the relevant of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:

"47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. "The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to 41 how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed."

60. This Court, after going the proposition of law as referred herein above has also gone through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana & Ors (supra).

61. It is settled position of law that when a person is being detained under Preventive Detention Act, 1950 the fundamental right as guaranteed under Indian constitution to freedom is to be suspended because such type of detention not in a case of pending trial.

62. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant has taken aid of Section 7 of the Prevention of Detention Act 1950, where the grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to the person affected by the order has been referred and by referring the same, it has been tried to be impressed that a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made, and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government.

63. The said provision since is under the Prevention of Detention Act and hence the same will not be applicable in 42 the matter of other penal offences herein the PML Act, 2002. If the content of Section 19(1) will be taken into consideration then it would be evident that if the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer authorized in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession, reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds of such arrest.

64. It is, thus, evident that Section 19 of the PML Act, 2002 confers power upon the competent authority to arrest a person if he has got reason to believe of commission of offence. The phrase „reason to believe' is having bearing and this Court is to consider on the basis of imputation as to whether the arrest is based upon any reason to having been said to be believed by the Director in order to come to the conclusion with respect to fact as to whether the remand/arrest is legal or not.

65. Further Section 19(1) which stipulates about the power for making arrest if there is reason to believe and the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing and as soon as may be, inform the said person, the grounds for such arrest. The aforesaid provision of communicating the 43 grounds for arrest recording its time frame as to what time the same is to be communicated has been laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra). Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 has observed that the reason for such arrest is to be communicated henceforth to the accused.

66. Subsequently, in the case of Ram Kishor Arora vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1682, the same has been taken into consideration wherein the petitioner has taken the plea that the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) has not been followed since there is no written communication said to be served informing the reason for arrest prior to such arrest and as such, the prayer for bail has been sought for. But the Hon‟ble Apex Court going to the facts of the said case wherein the petitioner was arrested in the month of June, 2023 while the judgment of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) has come in the month of October, 2023, hence, relying upon the law laid down by the larger Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court since the reason was 44 communicated to the petitioner within 24 hours and hence, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected.

67. It needs to refer herein the definition of "proceeds of crime" as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad.

68. In the explanation of the aforesaid provision it has been referred that for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. The aforesaid explanation has been inserted in the statute book by way of Act 23 of 2019.

69. This Court, in order to reach to the conclusion as to whether the material has been available before the learned Special Judge for passing the order of remand, has perused the order of remand, based upon the incriminating material claimed by the ED as per reference to that effect made in paragraph 7 to 17 of the application for custody. It has been found by learned Special Judge that huge amount of 45 proceeds of crime is involved with larger conspiracy to illegally sell the land by manipulation of official records and later acquiring the said land on meager price. Accordingly, the petitioner was remanded in the case.

70. The learned Special Judge has mainly relied upon the statement made at paragraph 7 to 17 of the application seeking for the remand of the accused and as such it is relevant to refer paragraph 7 to 17 of the said application herein, which reads as under:

7. On receipt of the application of Pradeep Bagchi, a fake owner of the property, the accused, Mr. Chhavi Ranjan verbally directed the Circle Officer, Bargain, Manoj Kumar to forward a verification report on the ownership of the property. Vide report dated 25.05.2021, the Circle Officer Manoj Kumar furnished a report stating that the name of Prafulla Bagchi/Pradip Bagchi did not appear in their records and Jayant Karnad is the rightful owner of the property. In furtherance to the conspiracy for alding and facilitating, the above stated accused persons, Mr. Chhavi Ranjan further directed the Circle officer to visit the office of Registrar of Assurances (Records), Kolkata and verify the original deeds for ascertaining actual owner of the property.

Investigation has revealed that the original registers In the records of Registrar of assurances, Kolkata were already forged/tampered and falsified in favour of PradeepBagchi.

8. Investigation reveals that Initially, the then District Sub- 8. Registrar, Ranchi, Mr. GhasiramPingua had rejected the request of Pradeep Bagchi for registration of the property in name of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. as, the name of Pradip Bagchi was not reflecting in the records of the registrar and he had knowledge that the registration of property was illegal. In addition to this, the then Circle Officer Mr. Manoj Kumar was also known to the fact that the property as per the records was in possession of the army for which he had also turned down 46 the mutation of the property earlier registered by Jayant Karnad (family of BM Laxman Rao) to thirteen persons.

9. In connivance with the above stated persons, Mr. Chhavi Ranjan, the then DC Ranchi verbally directed the Circle Officer Manoj Kumar to visit the Registrar of Assurances (Records), Kolkata. Manoj Kumar deputed the Circle Inspector Birendra Kumar Sahu and others to visit Kolkata for the said purpose. They filed application to get a certified copy of the deeds through one private broker and returned to Ranchi. The Circle Inspector received a deed by way of a private courier after a couple of days which indicated that the owner of the property in the records of registrar of assurances, Kolkata was Prafulla Bagchi. Accordingly on receipt of the sale deed, report was prepared by the Circle Officer Manoj Kumar wherein he was directed by Mr. Chhavi Ranjan to mention that as per the transfer of property Act, the first right on the abovesaid property is of Pradip Bagchi. A copy of the sale report was also made to the ADSR, Ghasi Ram Pingua (which was unusual and extraordinary step) for his information which was meant to direct the DSR to register the property in name of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. based on the report of the Circle Officer, which in turn was backed by the fake deed of Kolkata.

10. It is revealed that the earlier arrested accused persons Afshar Ali and Saddam Hussain visited the office of the present accused I.e. then D.C Mr. Chhavi Ranjan with a very close associate and confidant of Prem Prakash. The said close confidant of Prem Prakash was acting on the instructions of Amit Kumar Agarwal and Prem Prakash. During meeting the Circle Officer of Bargai Anchal, Mr. Manoj Kumar was also present there. Mr. Chhavi Ranjan directed the said circle officer to get the claim of Pradip Bagchi verified from Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. Thus, the above important part of this entire conspiracy was hatched in the office of the present accused Chhavi Ranjan.

11. In furtherance of this conspiracy, MrChhaviRanjan had also verbally directed the Circle officer, Manoj Kumar to do mutation of one property of 1 acres at Chesire home road in name of Bishnu Agarwal and his wife Anushree Agarwal although there 47 were existing disputes pending before the Circle office. During the course of earlier searches In this case I.e. ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 on 04.11.2022, the mobile phone of Mr. Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was seized. The forensic scrutiny of the said mobile phone of Mr. Bishnu Kumar Agarwal has revealed that he has facilitated Mr. Chhavi Ranjan in arranging tours to Goa. It is revealed that Mr. Bishnu Kumar Agarwal arranged the stays and food of the couple in Taj Fort, Aquada, Goa. The arrangements were made through a travel agent in order to conceal the manner of booking and the payment for this booking was paid in cash by one of the staffs of Bishnu Kumar Agarwal to a travel agent in Delhi. This establishes a quid pro quo between Bishnu Kumar Agarwal and Mr. Chhavi Ranjan, the then D.C, Ranchi, Enquiries have also revealed that Mr. Chhavi Ranjan has also facilitated Bishnu Kumar Agarwal in acquiring one non-saleable land at PugruMouza, Namkum, Ranchi for which certain enquiries have also been ordered by the state government.

12. During the custody of seven persons arrested on 14.04.2023, statement of Mr. Chhavi Ranjan was recorded on 24.04.2023 under section 50 of PMLA, 2002. During his statement, he denied his involvement in registry of the property having an area of 4.55 acres in name of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. He further made false statement that he does not know Mr. Prem Prakash and Mr. Amit Kumar Agarwal. During the custody, the said Afshar All, Saddam Hussain werealso confronted with Mr. Chhavi Ranjan at this office wherein dose confidant of Prem Prakash and Circle Officer Manoj Kumar were also present. All these persons stated before Mr. Chhavi Ranjan that he had directed the Circle Officer to conduct a verification on the claim of Pradip Bagchi over property from Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata.

13. Investigation reveals that Mr. Chhavi Ranjan facilitated Prem Prakash & Amit Kumar Agarwal in acquiring properties deceitfully. He is one of the associates of Amit Kumar Agarwal. The CBI, New Delhi has lodged an FIR against Amit Kumar Agarwal and others for conspiracy to malign the image of Judiciary and other government officials. In the said FIR, the 48 CBI has also enquired and found that Mr. Chhavi Ranjan tried to influence Rajeev Kumar on behest of Amit Kumar Agarwal.

14. The accused persons while holding the post of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi had received complaints from the Defence against the sale of the abovesaid property by Jayant Karnad. Therefore, it was in the knowledge of the accused persons that the property was in possession of the Defence and there was existing dispute between the defence and JayantKarnad who had sold land to thirteen different people. The defence had also requested the D.C to cancel the registration of the said property. Being aware of this fact, Mr. Chhavi Ranjan In collusion with the other accused persons, knowingly entertained the frivolous claim of Pradip Bagchi, held meetings with the accused persons and even directed the Circle Officer to conduct enquiry regarding the claim of Pradip Bagchi. This was knowingly done to register the property and transfer its ownership to Jagat Bandhu Tea Estates, a beneficial company of Amit Agarwal.

15 During Investigation, a similar nature of forgery in registration of another property having area about 7.16 acres surfaced. Investigation has revealed that this land falls in Khata no. 140, MaujaHehal, Ranchi. On the basis of a fake deed the above land was mutated in name of one Binod Singh. Investigation reveals that the said Binod Singh is a dummy owner who was under influence of some brokers. Immediately after mutation, the above property was registered in name of Shyam Singh and Ravi Singh Bhatia for a consideration amount of approximately Rs. 15,10,76,000 although, the government value of this property was Rs. 29,88,93,800/-, Investigation has further revealed that even out of the undervalued sum of Rs. 15,10,76,000 only a sum of Rs. 3.45 crores (approx.) has been paid for registration of the property through several cheques/transfers. Although the claim of Binod Singh was previously turned down by the C.O and LRDC, in the year 2021 the accused Mr. Chhavi Ranjan, the then D.C, Ranchi again misused his official position and allowed mutation in name of the said Binod Singh. Even the earlier Jamabandi of this land was cancelled by Mr. Chhavi Ranjan which existed in name of 49 Sahu family (in the name of heirs of MalgovindSahu). The rent (lagaan) of this property was allowed to be collectively paid for 82 years in name of Binod Singh and mutation was done by all the records which negated the claim of Binod Singh. The accused person Mr. Chhavi Ranjan has misused his official position and also facilitated these persons in taking possession of the property and doing boundary walls on it. Vide order dated 25.06.2021, Mr. Chhavi Ranjan as DC and District Magistrate issued directions to the Police for facilitating these persons in erecting boundary walls at the above site. Several police personnel were deployed for assisting these persons in taking possession and doing boundary wall.

16. Investigation has revealed that Mr. Chhavi Ranjan while working as the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi during 2020-21 to 2022 misused his official position and capacity of a public servant and extended undue benefits to several parties for corresponding gain to himself which he has been concealing. He has facilitated private persons for committing fraud. Mr. Chhavi Ranjan has also remained non-co-operative and have concealed facts regarding his involvement.

17. Investigation has revealed that bribe amounting to Rs. 1 crore was paid by the accused persons arrested earlier to the present accused through Prem Prakash for unblocking one plot of land at Bargain Mauja from the restricted list. Further, it is also revealed that a fixed amount of money ranging from 2-2.5 lacs was paid from Circle Offices to the accused person which was deposited to one of his close confidants.

71. It is, thus, evident that the petitioner while working as Deputy Commissioner has acted on the application of one Pradeep Bagchi, a fake owner of the property and verbally directed Mr. Manoj Kumar, the then Circle Officer, Bargai to forward the verification report of the ownership of the property. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Circle Officer submitted a report stating that the name of Pradeep Bagchi did not 50 appear in the record and Jayant Karnard is the rightful owner of the property. The petitioner has directed the Circle Officer to visit the office of Registrar Assurance (Records) Kolkata and verify the original deeds for ascertaining the owner of the property. It was surfaced in course of investigation that original registers in the records of Registrar of Assurance, Kolkata is forged/tampered and falsified in favour of Pradeep Bagchi.

72. It has also come in course of investigation that one Mr. Ghasi Ram Pingua, the then District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi, had rejected the request of Pradeep Bagchi for registration of the property in the name of M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Ltd., a company owned by accused no. 3, Amit Kumar Agarwal, as the name of Pradeep Bagchi was not reflecting in the records of the registrar, as he has knowledge that the record was illegal. It has also come that the then Circle Officer Mr. Manoj Kumar was known to the fact that the property as per the records was in possession of the Army for which he turned down the mutation of the property earlier registered by Jayant Karnard to 13 persons. The investigation discloses that Mr. Chavvi Ranjan, the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, the petitioner herein, verbally directed the Circle Officer, to visit the office of Registrar of Assurance, Kolkata. 51

73. Mr. Manoj Kumar, the then Circle Officer deputed Circle Inspector, Mr. Birendra Kumar Sahu and others to visit Kolkata for the said purpose.

74. Thereafter, they visited Kolkota and from there they have got the certified copy of deeds through one private Broker. The Circle Officer received the deed by way of private courier indicating therein that the owner of the property in the record of right of Assurance of Kolkata is Prafulla Bagchi. Accordingly, based on the said report the Circle Officer wherein he was directed by the present petitioner to mention that as per the transfer of property act, the first right of said property is of Pradeep Bagchi. It has further been surfaced that another accused persons, Afzal Ali and Saddam Hussain visited the office of present petitioner with a very close and confident of accused Prem Prakash who was acting on the instruction of accused Amit Kumar Agarwal accused no. 3 and both these persons, namely, Prem Prakash and Amit Kumar Agarwal has met with the present petitioner and the Circle Officer, Mr. Manoj Kumar was also there, who had directed the Circle Officer to get the claim of Pradeep Bagchi verify from the office of Assurance of Records Kolkata.

75. It is thus evident from the aforesaid imputation that the present Deputy Commissioner was aware with all the facts regarding the fabrication of the document from its 52 rightful owner in the name of Pradeep Bagchi and as such direction was given by him to the Circle Officer and based upon said forged document, the documents pertaining to the said land was prepared in the name of Pradeep Bagchi who has subsequently sold out the land in favour of one firm, M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd, the land situated at Cheshire Home, which was owned by Amit Kumar Agarwal, the accused no. 3.

76. The learned Special Judge based upon the aforesaid material available before him has remanded the present petitioner to Judicial custody.

77. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ground of arrest is only the involvement of the petitioner in illegal transfer of the land in question, but it would be evident from the order of remand wherein the reference of distinct properties has been made.

78. But the question herein is that even accepting that the other piece of land has been included as part of enquiry making basis of allegation said to be committed under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002, then merely because the reference of other piece of land which were sold out by way of committing forgery were not before the court, rather, allegation pertaining to transfer of land illegally was available with respect to one piece of land on the basis of 53 commission of forgery then can it said to be the order of remand just and proper.

79. It is considered view of this Court that the volume is immaterial rather if a single offence has been committed and based upon the said offence the prayer for remand has been sought for by the prosecuting agency it is the propriety on the part of the learned court to pass order of remand.

80. Herein also exactly the same is the case because it is admitted case of the petitioner as per the argument advanced that his culpability has been found with respect to facilitating in getting the land registered in favour of Pradeep Bagchi, which was subsequently transferred in the name of firm, M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd, of which the beneficial owneris Mr. Amit Kumar Agarwal.

81. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order of remand cannot be said to suffer from error, as the learned Court based upon the material available before it has passed the order of remand.

82. Coming to the second ground i.e., the arrest of the petitioner cannot be said to be in consonance with the provision of Section 19(1) of the PML Act, 2002 since at the time of arrest reference of only one allegation was placed, but as per counter affidavit the implication of 54 the petitioner has been shown to be involved in other cases of illegal transfer of land.

83. The argument has been advanced that it is the legal duty of the competent authority to communicate the reason of arrest as soon as possible after the arrest i.e., the requirement of Section 19(1) of the PML Act, 2002.

84. While on the other hand, learned ASGI has submitted that the paramount consideration while taking recourse of Section 19(1) of the Act, 2002 is that the authority is to reason to believe of commission of offence said to have been attracted under the PML Act, 2002 then such person is well to be arrested.

85. It has been submitted that herein the competent authority as per the PML Act, 2002 was having reason to believe based upon the conduct of the petitioner as per the imputation as stated under paragraphs 7 to 17 of the application filed to seek custody, as referred hereinabove and hence if on that belief the petitioner was arrested it cannot be said that there is violation of provision of Section 19(1) of the PML Act, 2002.

86. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument needs to refer herein the proposition, as has been laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) 55 wherein the Section 19(1) has been interpreted with its implication.

87. Section 19 of the 2002 Act postulates the manner in which arrest of person involved in money-laundering can be effected. Subsection (1) of Section 19 envisages that the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government, if has material in his possession giving rise to reason to believe that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under the 2002 Act, he may arrest such person. Besides the power being vested in high-ranking officials, Section 19 provides for inbuilt safeguards to be adhered to by the authorised officers, such as of recording reasons for the belief regarding the involvement of person in the offence of money-laundering. That has to be recorded in writing and while effecting arrest of the person, the grounds for such arrest are informed to that person. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted here as under:

"322. Section 19 of the 2002 Act postulates the manner in which arrest of person involved in money-laundering can be effected. Subsection (1) of Section 19 envisages that the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government, if has material in his possession giving rise to reason to believe that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under the 2002 Act, he may arrest such person. Besides the 56 power being invested in high-ranking officials, Section 19 provides for inbuilt safeguards to be adhered to by the authorised officers, such as of recording reasons for the belief regarding the involvement of person in the offence of money- laundering. That has to be recorded in writing and while effecting arrest of the person, the grounds for such arrest are informed to that person. Further, the authorised officer has to forward a copy of the order, along with the material in his possession, in a sealed cover to the Adjudicating Authority, who in turn is obliged to preserve the same for the prescribed period as per the Rules. This safeguard is to ensure fairness, objectivity and accountability of the authorised officer in forming opinion as recorded in writing regarding the necessity to arrest the person being involved in offence of money-laundering. Not only that, it is also the obligation of the authorised officer to produce the person so arrested before the Special Court or Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within twenty- four hours. This production is also to comply with the requirement of Section 167 of the 1973 Code. There is nothing in Section 19, which is contrary to the requirement of production under Section 167 of the 1973 Code, but being an express statutory requirement under the 2002 Act in terms of Section 19(3), it has to be complied by the authorised officer.

323. In the context of this provision, the challenge is that in absence of any formal complaint being filed, arrest under Section 19 is being made by the authorised officers. Whereas, the purport of Section 167 of the 1973 Code would suggest that the person can be arrested by the jurisdictional police without warrant under Section 41 of the 1973 Code only upon registration of a complaint under Section 154 of the 1973 Code in connection with cognizable offence or pursuant to the order of the Court. Even, in case of arrest pursuant to the order of the Court, a formal complaint against such person accusing him of being involved in commission of an offence is essential. Moreover, the person produced before the Court would be at a loss to know the grounds for arrest unless a formal FIR or complaint is filed accusing him about 57 his involvement in the commission of an offence. The provision if interpreted to permit the authorised officer to arrest someone being involved in the commission of offence of money-laundering without a formal complaint against him, would be ex facie manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional.

458. The next issue is :whether it is necessary to furnish copy of ECIR to the person concerned apprehending arrest or at least after his arrest? Section 19(1) of the 2002 Act postulates that after arrest, as soon as may be, the person should be informed about the grounds for such arrest. This stipulation is compliant with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Being a special legislation and considering the complexity of the inquiry/investigation both for the purposes of initiating civil action as well as prosecution, non-supply of ECIR in a given case cannot be faulted. The ECIR may contain details of the material in possession of the Authority and recording satisfaction of reason to believe that the person is guilty of money-laundering offence, if revealed before the inquiry/investigation required to proceed against the property being proceeds of crime including to the person involved in the process or activity connected therewith, may have deleterious impact on the final outcome of the inquiry/investigation. So long as the person has been informed about grounds of his arrest that is sufficient compliance of mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Moreover, the arrested person before being produced before the Special Court within twenty-four hours or for that purposes of remand on each occasion, the Court is free to look into the relevant records made available by the Authority about the involvement of the arrested person in the offence of money-laundering. In any case, upon filing of the complaint before the statutory period provided in 1973 Code, after arrest, the person would get all relevant materials forming part of the complaint filed by the Authority under Section 44(1)(b) of the 2002 Act before the Special Court.

459. Viewed thus, supply of ECIR in every case to person concerned is not mandatory. From the submissions made across the Bar, it is noticed that in some cases ED has furnished copy of ECIR to the person before filing of the complaint. That does not mean that in every case same procedure must be followed. It is enough, if ED at the time of arrest, contemporaneously discloses the grounds of such arrest to such person. Suffice it to observe that ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR which is mandatorily required to be recorded and supplied to the accused as per the provisions of 1973 Code. Revealing a copy of an ECIR, if made mandatory, may defeat the purpose sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act including frustrating the attachment of property (proceeds of crime). Non-supply of ECIR, which is essentially an internal document of ED, cannot be cited as violation of constitutional right. Concededly, the person arrested, in terms of Section 19 of the 2002 Act, is contemporaneously made aware about the grounds of his arrest. This is compliant with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It is not unknown that at times FIR does not reveal all aspects of the offence in question. In several cases, even the names of persons actually involved in the commission of offence are not mentioned in the FIR and described as unknown accused. Even, the particulars as unfolded are not fully recorded in the FIR. Despite that, the accused named in any ordinary offence is able to apply for anticipatory bail or regular bail, in which proceeding, the police papers are normally perused by the concerned Court. On the same analogy, the argument of prejudice pressed into service by the petitioners for non- supply of ECIR deserves to be answered against the petitioners. For, the arrested person for offence of money- laundering is contemporaneously informed about the grounds of his arrest; and when produced before the Special Court, it is open to the Special Court to call upon the representative of ED to produce relevant record concerning the case of the accused before him and look into the same for answering the need for his continued detention. Taking any view of the 59 matter, therefore, the argument under consideration does not take the matter any further."

88. It is evident from the aforesaid discussion made therein that the authority under the Act, 2002 is to prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of "proceeds of crime". Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process.

89. As discussed above the provision of Section 19(1) of the Act, 2002 has subsequently been considered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) wherein also it has been stated that the reason of arrest is to be supplied but has been pleased to hold that by which time it is to be supplied. In the aforesaid case, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that it should be "henceforth".

90. It is thus evident from the imputation of allegation leveled against the petitioner that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to take the ground that there was no 60 reason to believe to the competent authority for making arrest. Irrespective of the fact that subsequently the other allegations have been added. The matter would have been different if at the time of arrest there would not have been imputation and if subsequent to arrest if any imputation has been found to be there then only the believe would be taken that at the time of arrest there was no evidence then how it can be said that there was reason to believe with the competent authority but that is not the case herein since it is the admitted fact herein and as per the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner also it has been admitted that the allegation so far it relates to the transfer of land in the name of firm, M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd at at the time of arrest at least one imputation was there which led the competent authority to come to the conclusion of belief by making a reason to arrest and as such it cannot be said that there is no compliance of provision of Section 19(1) of the PML Act, 2002.

91. Accordingly, argument which has been advanced in this regard that the provision of Section 19(1) has not been followed is having no substance.

92. The third ground has been taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no legal evidence, and as such the very arrest is illegal. 61

93. While on the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI appearing for the respondent-ED has submitted that there is ample material available in course of inquiry based upon which the prosecution report was submitted and hence it cannot be said that there is no legal evidence.

94. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival submissions, needs to refer herein the allegation which was collected in course of investigation/inquiry, which is being referred herein:

"3. Brief Facts of the offence/allegation/charge/amount involved under PMLA 3.6 As stated above that there were ongoing litigations regarding the possession of this property between Army and the purported claimant Jayant Karnad who had sold the land to 14 persons by way of 16 deeds (RUD No. 115 to 130) on strength of the order obtained from the High Court of Jharkhand by concealing and manipulating facts. The accused persons namely Afshar All, Pradip Bagchi and his accomplices meanwhile prepared a fake deed from the office of the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata in the name of Prafulla Bagchi F/o Pradip Bagchi (RUD No. 108 &

113). It was projected that his father Prafulla Bagchi had given the land orally to the Army and as on day Pradeep Bagchi is the purported rightful claimant of the property. These persons contacted Prem Prakash for selling this land (Accused in illegal mining case and presently in judicial custody. Prem Prakash is a power broker and a very influential person who was access to highly placed government officials and ministers in Jharkhand.

Prem Prakash is also very close to Mr. Chhavi Ranjan, the Ex-D.C Ranchi and Amit Kumar Agarwal who is also a very influential person in Jharkhand. In connivence with Prem Prakash and Amit Kumar Agarwal, Mr. Chavi Ranjan influenced the officials of Circle office and District Sub Registrar, Ranchi and managed to procure a favourable report (RUD No. 27) for Pradeep Bagchi and 62 the property was subsequently acquired in a dishonest manner by Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. Both persons namely Amit Kumar Agarwal and Prem Prakash were aware that the owner Pradip Bagchi was a fake person and the deed was false which is evident from the fact that they acquired property worth several crores of rupees by paying only Rs 25 lakhs (which was, in fact, commission). Instead, Amit Kumar Agarwal, the beneficial owner of M Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. knowingly acquired the abovesald proper in the name of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Chhavi Ranjan, the DC of Ranchi assisted these persons to acquire the above property by misusing his official position and overlooking the records available in his office/subordinate offices. Mr. Chhavi Ranjan had knowledge that the above- sald property is disputed as one dispute between Defence and JayantKarnad was also pending before his disposal i.e. In the court of the District Magistrate, Ranchi which he used to preside during his tenure. Yet on receipt of the application of Pradeep Bagchi, who falsely claimed himself to be the rightful owner of the property, the then Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Chhavi Ranjan assisted Prem Prakash, Amit Kumar Agarwal, Afsar All, Saddam Hussain and others verbally directed the Circle officer to visit the office of Registrar of Assurances (Records), Kolkata and verify the original deeds for ascertaining actual owner of the property. Investigation has revealed that the original registers in the records of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata were already forged/tampered with and falsified in favour of PradeepBagchi and the direction to visit Kolkata to verify the records available with Registrar of Assurances was a well-executed plan so that the property could be transferred to Amit Kumar Agarwal through his company JagatBandhuTeaEstates Pvt. Ltd.

8. Brief detail of persons examined u/s 50(2) & 3 of PMLA 8.1 Circle officer Manoj Kumar The Circle officer Manoj Kumar has stated in his statement dated 03.02.2023 recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002 (RUD No.27) that Pradip Bagchi had submitted an application at the D.C Office, Ranchi and had claimed that the property situated at M.S Plot No. 557, MaujaMorabadi, Ranchi admeasuring 4.55 acres belonged to his father Prafulla Bagchi. The accused Chhavi 63 Ranjan had directed him to provide a report on claim of Pradip Bagchi. On being directed by the accused Chhavi Ranjan, he further directed the Circle Inspector Birendra Kumar Sahu and the Revenue Sub-Inspector Jayant Vijay Toppo to provide a report immediately. He further stated that on 25.05.2021 (RUD No. 28), he had submitted a verification report to the accused Chhavi Ranjan, the then D.C, Ranchi which stated that the land belonged to Jayant Karnad as per the records. He further stated that he was again directed by Chhavi Ranjan to visit the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata in order to verify the records available there for the claim of Pradip Bagchi over the above said property. It is revealed from his statement that his team visited Kolkata for getting a certified copy of deed no. 4360 of the year 1933 which was registered in volume no. 108, page no. 200-300 (RUD No.113). On the basis of the said report, he forwarded another verification report by letter no, 847 (1) dated 25.09.2021 to the accused person Chhavi Ranjan who was ex D.C, Ranchi (RUD No. 27) In which he had stated that on the directions of the accused Chhavi Ranjan, he mentioned that under the Transfer of Property Act, Pradip Bagchi has the first right on the Morabadi property.

In his statement dated 03.02.2023 and 07.02.2023 recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002, (RUD No. 27 & 28) the Circle Officer Mr. Manoj Kumar stated that he had doubts on the certified copy of deed 4369 of 1932 as the deed was entered on the last three pages of volume 108 still, he forwarded report because receipt of the certified copy of the deed and the pressure exerted by the accused Chhavi Ranjan, He further stated that visiting Kolkata for verifying the records of a private person was an unusual and strange process. No Deputy Commissioner or the Registrar issues such directions in general. In his statement dated 07.02.2023 (RUD No. 28) recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002, the Circle Officer has stated that it is a very unusual act to ignore the office record and visit some other office at Kolkata on government expenses for a private person and the same was done on the orders of the accused person Chhavi Ranjan, He further stated that he has provided two 64 different verification report I.e., report by memo no. 443 (ii) dated 25.05.2021 and 847 (II) dated 25.09.2021 on the claim of Pradip Bagchi and forwarded it to the accused Chhavi Ranjan on his directions.

During his statement dated 21.04.2023 (RUD No. 29), he stated that he personally doesn't know Afshar All but when he was called by the accused Chhavi Ranjan at his office, some other persons were also present there for the matter related to Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. He has further stated that a fixed amount of Rs. 2 lacs was sent to Mr. Chhavi Ranjan when he joined the Circle Office, Baragai. However, when he joined the office, the matter came into light of the superior authorities and this fixed collection ended. During his statement dated 04.05.2023 recorded under section (RUD No. 30), he stated that on 24.05.2021 he was called by the accused Chhavi Ranjan at his office and was verbally directed to visit Kolkata and give report as his earlier report dated 25.05.2021 was not correct. It also reveals from his above statement that he was unwilling to visit Kolkata and as such he demanded Rs. 50,000/- for the visit. Further, he also in his statement that he was under coercion by the accused Chhavi Ranjan who pressurised him to mention in his report dated 25.09.2021 that under transfer of property act, Pradip Bagchi has first claim on the property. 8.3 Afshar Ali He further stated that no government official demanded money for the registration of the said 4.55 acres Morabadi property because everyone knew that Amit Kumar Agarwal, Prem Prakash and the ex-D.C, Ranchi Chhavi Ranjan were involved behind the registration of this property in the name of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.

He further stated that on earlier occasions also, he had prepared fake deeds of the landed properties from Kolkata and had sold them to different persons, One of such deeds was of Cheshire Home Road which was a property of 1 acre, initially auld to Punit Bhargava, (a close associate of Prem Prakash) on directions of Prem Prakash, who further sold this land to Bishnu Kumar 65 Agarwal. He further stated that he was due to receive Rs 1.50 crores in cash from Prem Prakash against the above said property of Cheshire Home Road. He stated that a plot of land which was a part of 3.81 acres was blocked from the D.C office. He had requested Prem Prakash to get the said piece of land unblocked from the D.C Office. He further stated that fake deeds were prepared by him for the said 3.81 acres of land and mutation of one of the unblocked lands was happening from the Circle Office as it was blocked at the D.C Office. Prem Prakash called the accused Chhavi Ranjan from his office in his presence for unblocking the plot no. 891 & 893 which was about 1.32 acre and for this, Prem Prakash demanded Rs. 1 crore for Chhavi Ranjan. The said amount of Rs 1 crore meant for Chhavi Ranjan was adjusted from the sum of Rs 1.50 crores, receivable from Prem Prakash.

9.8 Acquisition of property by Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.

9.8.1 As stated above that the land was sold by Jayant Karnad to 14 purchasers and there were also ongoing litigations regarding the possession of this between Army and the purported claimant Jayant Karnad. The accused persons namely Afshar All, Pradip Bagchi and his accomplices namely the accused Afshar Ali and Saddam Hussain meanwhile prepared a fake deed from the office of the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata in the name of Prafulla Bagchi, Father of Pradip Bagchi. It was projected that his father Prafulla Bagchi had purchased this land from one Pramod Nath Dasgupta and he had given the land for occupation orally to the Army and as on day Pradeep Bagchi is the rightful claimant of the property. These persons contacted one Prem Prakash for disposal of this land (Accused in an illegal stone mining case and is presently languishing in Judicial Custody). Prem Prakash is a power broker and an influence peddler who has access to highly placed government officials and political persons in Jharkhand. Prem Prakash is also very close to Mr. Chhavi Ranjan, the Ex-D.C Ranchi and the beneficial owner of the defence land i.e. Amit Kumar Agarwal (who is also a very influential person in Jharkhand). Mr. Chhavi Ranjan had 66 knowledge that the above said property is disputed as one dispute between Defence and JayantKarnad was also pending for disposal before his court i.e., the court of the District Magistrate, Ranchi and the accused Chhavi Ranjan was also conducting the hearing in this matter. Yet on receipt of the application of PradeepBagchl, who falsely claimed himself to be the rightful owner of the property, the Ex- Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Chhavi Ranjan in connivance with Prem Prakash, Amit Kumar Agarwal, Afsar Ali, Saddam Hussainandothers knowingly directed the Circle Officer, Bargain, Manoj Kumar to forward a verification report on the ownership of the property. Vide letter dated 25.05.2021 (RUD No 28), the Circle Officer Manoj Kumar furnished a report stating that the name of Prafulla Bagchi/Pradip Bagchi did not appear in their records and further Pradeep Bagchi has not submitted any documents in support of his claim. The said report was deliberately not accepted by the accused Chhavi Ranjan and it was also not taken on his official record. However, the dispatch register of the circle office, Bargain shows that the said letter was dispatched on 25.05.2021 (RUD No 31). In furtherance to the conspiracy and for aiding and facilitating, the above- stated accused persons Amit Kumar Agarwal and others, Mr. Chhavi Ranjan In a deceitful and ingenious manner further orally directed the Circle officer to put up official request praying for visit to the office of Registrar of Assurances (Records), Kolkata and verity the original deeds for ascertaining actual owner of the property. Investigation has revealed that the original registers in the records of Registrar of assurances, Kolkata were already forged/tampered with and falsified in favour of PradeepBagchi and the direction to visit Kolkata to verify the records available with registrar of Assurances was a well-executed plan so that upon verification of the records of the registrar of assurances, Kolkata, the name of Pradeep Bagchi could come up officially as the owner of the property and further the property could be transferred to Amit Kumar Agarwal through his company Jagat Bandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd in an untainted manner.

9.8.2 On directions of Prem Prakash and Amit Kumar Agarwal, Mr. Chavi Ranjan Influenced the officials of Circle office and 67 District Sub Registrar, Ranchi and managed to procure favorable report for Pradeep Bagchi and the property was subsequently acquired in a dishonest manner in the name of Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. Both persons namely Amit Kumar Agarwal and Prem Prakash knew that the owner Pradip Bagchi was a fake person and the deed was false which is evident from the fact that they acquired property worth several crores of rupees by paying only Rs 25 lakhs (which was in fact a commission). Instead, Amit Kumar Agarwal, the beneficial owner of company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. knowingly acquired the abovesaid property in name of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Chhavi Ranjan, then DC of Ranchi assisted these persons to acquire the above property by misusing his official position and overlooking the records available with his office. The Circle inspector Birendra Kumar Sahu and the Revenue Sub-Inspector Jayant Vijay Toppo visited the office of the registrar of assurances on 19.09.2021 (RUD No 33). The above two persons arranged a broker through which they applied for the certified copy of the deed no. 4369 of 1932 and returned back. The broker sent them the certified copy of the fake deed through skyking courier on 22.09.2021. The courier number is 403358804 and was addressed to the Circle Office, Baragal, Ranchi. 9.8.3 On receipt of the said deed, report dated 22.09.2021 favourable to the accused persons was prepared by the Circle Officer Manoj Kumar and he was also directed by Chhavi Ranjan to mention that as per the transfer of property Act, the first right on the abovesaid property is of Pradip Bagchi (RUD No 27). A copy of the said report was also sent to the ADSR, Ghasi Ram Pingua (which was unusual and extraordinary step) vide letter no. 847 dated 25.09.2021 for his information which was meant to enable the DSR to register the property in name of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. based on the report of the Circle Officer which in turn was backed by the fake deed of Kolkata. Thus, it is evident that it was a deep-rooted conspiracy wherein was pre-planned and was well executed too. The entire process ended in a very swift manner which was personally monitored by the accused Chhavi Ranjan.

Brief summary of result of investigation under PMLA 10.2 The accused person Chhavi Ranjan also assisted two persons namely Ravi Singh Bhatia and Shyam Singh acquiring a very large parcel of land admeasuring 7.16 acres situated at Plot no. 1323, 1337/1349, 1333, 1334, 1338, 1324, Khata No. 140, Hehal, Ranchi. In this case also, fake deed ofthe above- mentioned property was created by brokers and the original deeds were torn and removed from the original registers at the office of the DSR, Ranchi. The accused person Chhavi Ranjan cancelled the existing Jamabandi of this land and allowed the mutation of this property in name of one person namely Binod Singh. Immediately after the mutation was done In name of Binod Singh, the property was sold to the above two persons namely Ravi Singh Bhatia and Shyam Singh showing a consideration price of Rs. 15,10,76,000 whose declared market value was Rs. 29,88,93,800. Investigation reveals that only an amount of Rs. 3.66 crores were paid as commission in the account of Binod Singh which was immediately siphoned off into the accounts of brokers. Rest of the amount was factiously shown in the deed.

Specific Roles of the Accused/Co-Accused/person abetting in the commission of offence of money laundering by directly/ indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assist or knowingly is a party or is involved in concealment/possession/ acquisition or use in projecting or claiming Proceeds of Crime as untainted property in terms of section 3 of PMLA:

Chhav         The        accused                 person Property      having
i             knowingly               assisted      the   Commercial value
Ranja         accused No 1, accused No 2, Rs.
n             accused No 3, accused No 6, 41,51,68,390/-
(accus        accused No 6, accused of No asper                           the
ed            7 and other accused persons minimum effective
No.4)         in    theiractivities        connected value per decimal
              with acquisition, possession, fixed                by   District
              concealment as well as use of               Registrar, Ranchi,
              proceeds           of     crime      and effective        from
                            69

projecting and claiming them 01.08.2021. In as untainted property. The addition to the accused person was actually above, acquisition a party with the accused No of proceeds of 3, Amit Kumar Agarwal in crime amounting to acquiring proceeds of crime Rs. 1 crore in cash worth Rs 20,75,84,200 from Afshar All, (government value) in form of accused no. 6 landed property, measuring 4.55 acres (455 decimals) at MS Plot no. 557, MaujaMorabadi whose present commercial value is around Rs. 41,51,68,390/-.

The accused person was also party with Afshar All and Prem Prakash in unblocking a piece of land measuring 1.28 acres in plot no. 891 & 893, Khata no. 256, Bagarai, Ranchi for which the accused paid an amount of Rs. 1 crore in cash. The accused person also forcibly acquired fixed amount of Rs. 2 lacs per month from Circle Offices under him.

                 Thus,     the        accused
                 person   has    committed
                 the   offence   of    money
                 laundering under section
                 3 of PMLA, 2002 and is
                 liable to be punished
                 under section 4 of PMLA,
                 2002.

95. From the aforesaid paragraphs of the prosecution complaint, it appears that the present petitioner Chhavi Ranjan influenced the officials of Circle Officer, Baragai, 70 Ranchi and District Sub Registrar, Ranchi and managed to procure a favourable report for Pradeep Bagchi at the behest of Prem Prakash and Amit Kumar Agarwal, and the property was subsequently acquired dishonestly by M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.

96. It further appears that the petitioner i.e. Chhavi Ranjan alongwith Amit Kumar Agarwal and Prem Prakash was aware and knew that the ownership of Pradeep Bagchi was fictitious and the deed was fake yet the petitioner assisted and knowingly became a party with Amit Kumar Agarwal to acquire the above property which was proceeds of crime. The accused Chhavi Ranjan had knowledge that the above said property is disputed, as one dispute between Defence and Jayant Karnad was also pending before his disposal i.e. in the court of District Magistrate, Ranchi which he used to preside over during his tenure. Yet on receipt of the application of Pradeep Bagchi, who falsely claimed himself to be the rightful owner of the property, the accused Chhavi Ranjan knowingly and deliberately gave verbal directions to the Circle Officer to visit the office of Registrar of Assurances (Records), Kolkata and verify the records for ascertaining actual owner of the property.

97. Investigation has revealed that the original registers in the records of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata were already forged/tampered with and falsified in favour of 71 Pradeep Bagchi, and direction to visit Kolkata to verify the records available with Registrar of Assurance was a well- executed plan so that the property could be transferred to Amit Kumar Agarwal in a legal manner through his company Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.

98. It has come on record that in connivance with Prem Prakash and Amit Kumar Agarwal, Chhavi Ranjan influenced the officials of Circle Office and District Sub Registrar, Ranchi and managed to procure a favourable report for Pradeep Bagchi and the property was subsequently acquired dishonestly by M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Chhavi Ranjan, then DC of Ranchi assisted these persons to acquire the above property by misusing his official position and overlooking the records available in his office/subordinate offices. Chhavi Ranjan had knowledge that the above said property is disputed as one dispute between Defence and was also pending before his for disposal i.e. in the court of District Magistrate, Ranchi which he used to preside during his tenure.

99. On perusal of record, prima facie it appears that the petitioner knowingly assisted the M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., Amit Kumar Agarwal, Afsar Ali, Mohammad Saddam Hussain and other accused persons in their activities connected with acquisition, possession, concealment as well as use of proceeds of crime and 72 projecting and claiming them as untainted property. The accused person was actually a party with the Amit Kumar Agarwal in acquiring proceeds of crime wroth Rs. 20,75,84,200/- (government value) in form of landed property, measuring 4.55 acres (455 decimals) at MS Plot no. 557, MauzaMorabadi whose present commercial value is around Rs. 41,51,68,390/-.

100. This Court, in view of aforesaid imputation, is of the view that the argument which has been advanced that there is no legal evidence against the petitioner is not acceptable, hence, rejected.

101. Fourth argument has been advanced that even accepting that there is legal evidence then also it cannot be said to be proceeds of crime, as per the definition of proceeds of crime.

102. The argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that offence said to be committed is only a forgery of the document attracting the schedule offence but merely because schedule offence has been committed the same cannot be brought to the purview of proceeds of crime.

103. While on the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI has vehemently opposed such ground by making submission that the petitioner has been found to be involved in facilitating the co-accused persons, namely, 73 accused no.1 Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., accused no.3 Amit Kumar Agarwal, accused no.6 Afsar Ali, accused no.7 Mohammad Saddam Hussain and other accused persons in their activities connected with acquisition, possession, concealment as well as use of proceeds of crime for the purpose of transfer of land in question.

104. In the context of aforesaid contention this Court thinks fit to discuss the ambit of the Proceeds of crime which means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of such property.

105. The property has been defined under Section 2 (v) of the Act, 2002 which means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located.

106. Herein, specific allegation against the accused persons is that a land in question, after making forge documents, worth of Rs. about 20 crores has been transferred in a meager amount in which the petitioner in the capacity of Deputy Commissioner has acted as a facilitator by issuing command upon the subordinate 74 officials, both the circle officer and the sub-registrar, the registration authority.

107. This Court on consideration of rival submissions advanced on behalf of parties on this issue is again required to consider the definition of proceeds of crime and property and at the risk of repetition the same is being referred herein "2(u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property 3 [or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] 4 [or abroad];

5 [Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence;] 2(v) "property" means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located; 1 [Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the term "property" includes property of any kind used in the commission of an offence under this Act or any of the scheduled offences;

108. The term „proceeds of crime‟ has been defined by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) as under paragraphs, as referred hereinabove. 75

109. The property has also been defined, which means assets of any description i.e., corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located, meaning thereby that the property will also include in terms of liquid money.

110. The Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 provides that directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use or projecting as an untainted property or claiming as an untainted property shall be guilty of money laundering Act.

111. Section 3 of the 2002 Act, defines the offence of money-laundering. The expression "money-laundering", ordinarily, means the process or activity of placement, layering and finally integrating the tainted property in the formal economy of the country. However, Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence, as defined, captures every process and activity in dealing with the proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly, and not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy to constitute an act of money-laundering.

112. Section 3 has been taken note by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. 76 Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) wherefrom it is evident the aforesaid provision plainly indicates that any (every) process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime results in offence of money-laundering. Projecting or claiming the proceeds of crime as untainted property, in itself, is an attempt to indulge in or being involved in money-laundering, just as knowingly concealing, possessing, acquiring or using of proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being quoted as under:

268. Independent of the above, we have no hesitation in construing the expression "and" in Section 3 as "or", to give full play to the said provision so as to include "every" process or activity indulged into by anyone, including projecting or claiming the property as untainted property to constitute an offence of money-laundering on its own. The act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property presupposes that the person is in possession of or is using the same (proceeds of crime), also an independent activity constituting offence of money-laundering. In other words, it is not open to read the different activities conjunctively because of the word "and". If that interpretation is accepted, the effectiveness of Section 3 of the 2002 Act can be easily frustrated by the simple device of one person possessing proceeds of crime and his accomplice would indulge in projecting or claiming it to be untainted property so that neither is covered under Section 3 of the 2002 Act.

269. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money-laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a 77 scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form --

be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so. Thus, involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute offence of money-laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence -- except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime.

113. Thus, it is evident that the penal offence under Section 3 will be attracted if a person is directly or indirectly even attempting to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, meaning thereby that it is not that it is direct involvement rather it is indirectly also even in taking attempts or by assisting in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

114. The question of commission of crime as per imputation, as per the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner even accepting to be correct the same will not come under the fold of proceeds of crime and hence Section 3 will not be attracted but this Court is dealing with the issue of bail and not analyzing the veracity of the imputation which is only to be done at appropriate stage and at this stage which requires consideration is parameters of Section 45 (ii) of the PML Act, 2002 as per which the twin condition is to be fulfilled . 78

115. The paramount consideration is that while considering the issue of bail, the competent Court is to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

116. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that before consideration of bail and for the purpose of granting bail the court must be satisfied based upon the reasonable ground that he is not guilty of such offence and that is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

117. The first condition is of paramount implication that is satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the concerned person is not guilty of such offence. Reason to believe for the purpose of reaching to satisfaction by a Court of law for the consideration of the prayer for bail is only to be available from the nature of allegation involved.

118. Herein the direct involvement of the petitioner in facilitating the other accused persons in getting the property transferred in their favour in a meager amount in comparison to that of government notification, as per the detail furnished hereinabove.

119. As would be evident from the material collected in course of enquiry the connivance of the petitioner with the Pradip Bagchi accused no. 5, Amit Agarwal, accused no. 3, 79 Afsar Ali, accused no. 6. and other accused persons cannot be lightly brushed out.

120. It would be evident from the various paragraph of prosecution complaint as mentioned above that the petitioner although is a government functionary heading the district in the capacity of Deputy Commissioner but even then he instead of protecting the State interest has connived with these persons to facilitate in illegal transfer of land based upon the forged document which he was already knowing and that is the reason he had directed the Circle Officer, namely Manoj Kumar to have an enquiry from the office of Registrar Assurance, Kolkata.

121. Therefore, the ground which has been taken that even accepting that there is legal evidence then also it cannot be said to be proceeds of crime, as per the definition of proceeds of crime, has no substance.

122. The learned counsel for the respondent-ED has taken the ground that the provisions of Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 will be applicable in the State of Jharkhand, which only provides provision of creation of mutation and cancellation by the Circle Officer, the competent authority and the Deputy Commissioner is the appellate authority. Further even in the State of Jharkhand, Sub-registrar has been notified to Act as a Registrar under the Indian Registration Act, 80 1908/relevant rule by virtue of Rule formulated in this regard.

123. In response, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid fact of applicability of Act, 1973 and the power of Sub-Registrar under the Jharkhand Registration Act.

124. There is no dispute to the fact that in the State of Jharkhand there is an Act, known as Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, which is being followed in the State of Jharkhand wherein the competent authority to do mutation is the Circle Officer. Chapter III of the Act 1973 deals with the mutation under which, under Section 14 it has been provided for making requisition and disposal of mutation case wherefrom it is evident that if any requisition would be made by a transferee before the Circle Officer, he will start a mutation proceeding and after entering it in the mutation case register which shall be maintained in the prescribed form shall cause such enquiry to be made as may be deemed necessary and for that a general notice will be issued inviting objections and in case of no objection the Circle Officer will dispose of such application within a period of one month. Further Section 15 & 16 provides the provision of appeal and revision to be filed before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and the Collector respectively. 81

125. It appears from the record, as has been surfaced in course of investigation, that the Circle officer has informed the Deputy Commissioner that the mutation of the said case was already rejected but even then it is alleged that the Circle Officer was coerced to favour Pradeep Bagchi, under which jurisdiction such direction was given is best known to the present petitioner.

126. Likewise, Ghasi Ram Pingua, the then Sub- Registrar, Ranchi, is the competent registration officer by virtue of notification issued by State Government but the Deputy Commissioner (petitioner) under what authority directed the Sub-Registrar to register the land, which as per evidence was once denied to be registered, is also best known to the petitioner, however, it is to be looked into at the time of trial.

127. It has also come that the land which has been transferred was alleged to be owned by Defense Estate Danapur claiming the said land was owned by defence while later on the claim of ownership of the land was made by accused Pradeep Bagchi, but very surprisingly the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has not conducted enquiry regarding the grievance of Defense Estate Danapur rather directed the Circle Officer, Bargai to conduct enquiry on the grievances of co-accused persons, while said Pradeep 82 Bagchi has made claim subsequent to the claim of the Defence Estate Officer, Danapur.

128. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed much reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Regina Vs. GH [(2015) UKSC 24] taking the ground that all the crime cannot be said to come under the fold of „proceeds of crime‟.

129. This Court has gone through the said judgment along with the factual aspects involved herein. There is no dispute about the law laid down therein that that all the crimes cannot be said to come under the fold of „proceeds of crime‟. This Court is not disputing the aforesaid proposition of law but at the same time this Court is required to look into the basis of involvement of one or the other accused in the touchstone of PML Act, 2002, which has elaborately been dealt with by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) wherein the PML Act has been dealt with along with the reason and object for enactment of the said Act.

130. Furthermore, at this stage, this Court is to look into the fulfillment of twin condition under Section 45 as has been dealt with herein above and on consideration of such condition this Court has reached to the conclusion based upon the material that it cannot be said that there is no 83 reason to believe of involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime.

131. From the aforesaid judgment which is of United Kingdom, it appears that there is no reference of pari materia provision to that of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002. Hence, the judgment rendered in Regina Vs. GH is not applicable in the case at hand.

132. In the backdrop of these facts, this Court is to consider twin condition, as per provision of Section 45 of the Act, 2002, which has been elaborately dealt with in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra).

133. This Court needs to refer herein that whatever argument has been made on behalf of petitioner is in the teeth of Section 45 (ii) of the PML Act, 2002, which provides for twin condition to be looked into at the time of considering bail; meaning thereby there must be availability of prima facie allegation against one or the other person of commission of the offence under PML Act, 2002, otherwise the provision of Section 45 (ii) will be redundant which is not the spirit and object of the Act, as has been clarified by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra).

134. Therefore, the paramount consideration is to consider the twin condition under section 45 (ii) of the Act, 2002 for the purpose of reaching to the conclusion as to whether there is reason to believe of commission of no guilt by the persons concerned or not.

135. After perusal of the record of the instant case it appears that the holding number was issued to show that the possession of the said land is in the name of Pradeep Bagchi and based upon which title of the said land was established with the help of present petitioner by relying upon the report which is based upon a forged deed planted in the Registrar Kolkata Assurance Office and petitioner used his official position to give legal colour to the transaction when he himself was aware that the title to the said land is in dispute and possession belongs to Defence and from the various paragraph of prosecution complaint it is evident that in the said act proceeds of crime is generated wherein forged deed is relied upon and transaction was entered into a miniscule rate wherein no actual amount of payment was done.

136. From record it also appears that the petitioner has involvement in facilitating brokers and private entities to acquire the properties which had been in possession of the Defence before independence. The deliberate act of the petitioner is not only restricted in extending benefits to the 85 private entities but it also amounts to cheating and forgery and the petitioner who had a responsibility of ensuring fairness and securing government properties himself misused his official position and influenced his subordinate officials.

Ground of Parity

137. In course of argument, raising the issue of parity the fact about bail granted in favour of co-accused, Dilip Kumar Ghosh has been made.

138. This Court has considered the imputation made against said Dilip Kumar Ghosh vis-à-vis the present petitioner so as to apply the principle of parity.

139. Law is well settled that the principle of parity is to be applied if the case of one or the other is exactly to be similar then only the principle of parity is to be applied but if there is difference in between the facts then the principle of parity is not to be applied

140. Ground of parity though has been raised but in the aforesaid context it may be noted that parity is not the law, rather the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and while applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. 86

141. Reference in this regard may be taken to the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Tarun Kumar Versus Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, wherein it has been held as under:

"18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration.

19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision."

142. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail and by only simple saying that another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. Reference in this regard may be taken from the 87 judgment as rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230, wherein, it has been held as under:

"25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 :] , this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed : (SCC p. 515, para 17) "17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity.It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order [MitthanYadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside.

26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12-2020 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was 88 sought with Sidhdhrajsinh BhagubhaVaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law."

143. The detailed imputation has been discussed herein above, so far the present petitioner is concerned but in order to come to the conclusion as to whether the case of the petitioner is at par with the said Dilip Kumar Ghosh, it requires to refer herein that the said Dilip Kumar Ghosh is not the public functionary and not on the post of public responsibility, which the present petitioner is holding who is having more accountability being the custodian of the public money and public land. In addition to that the allegation against the said Dilip Kumar Ghosh is that he was working under the dictate of Amit Agarwal, who is the beneficiary owner of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., 89 therefore, the fact of the case of the petitioner is different to that of the fact of the said Dilip Kumar Ghosh.

144. Therefore, as per the principle laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar Versus Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement (supra), the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench granting bail in favour of Dilip Kumar Ghosh is having no aid to the petitioner.

145. Further it is required to refer herein that the Money Laundering is an economic offence and economic offences come under the of grave offences hence needs to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail as held by the Hon‟ble Apex court in the case of Y. S Jagan Mohan Reddy v/s C. B. I (2013) 7 SCC 439. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgments are being quoted as under:

"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country."

146. Similarly, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Nimgadda Prasad v/s CBI (2013) 7 SCC 466 has reiterated the same view from paragraph 23 to 25 which reads as under:

"23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [(1987) 2 SCC 364: 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] this Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under: (SCC p. 371, para 5) "5. ... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest."

24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and 91 considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country."

147. It requires to refer herein that the parameter to deal with public servant is quite different to that of other person. The reason for this is that if the public servant, who is the custodian of public property will discharge his duty with utmost honesty and sincerity which is the bounden duty of the public servant then there will no occasion for causing loss to the State Government. Exactly the case herein is since the Deputy Commissioner, the post which was hold by the petitioner during the relevant time in the district of Ranchi, the capital of State of Jharkhand, has not only facilitated the accused persons in transfer of land in question in a meager amount but also indirectly supported the accused persons particularly Amit Kumar Agarwal, accused no. 3, who happens to be the beneficial owner M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd and other companies in whose account the amounts has been transmitted.

148. It is, thus, evident from the discussion made hereinabove that so far as the case of the present petitioner is concerned, the twin condition as provided under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is not being fulfilled so as to grant the privilege of bail to the present petitioner.

149. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts and circumstances, as have been analyzed hereinabove, 92 this Court is of the view that the applicant has failed to make out a case for exercise of power to grant bail and considering the facts and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication of bail, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant bail. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be rejected.

150. Accordingly, based upon the aforesaid discussion, the instant application stands dismissed.

151. It is made clear that the observations/findings, as recorded hereinabove, is only for the purpose of issue of consideration of bail. The same will not prejudice the issue on merit in course of trial.

152. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Alankar/-

A.F.R.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court