Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bhumika Jitendra Navlani & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 August, 2023
Author: Bibek Chaudhuri
Bench: Bibek Chaudhuri
25.08.2023
IA No.:CRAN/7/2023
In
CRR/3629/2022
Bhumika Jitendra Navlani & Ors.
-Versus-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioners: Mr. Y.J Dastoor, Sr. Adv.,
Ms. Samira Grewal, Adv.,
Dr. Sujay Kanthawala, Adv.,
Mr. Sajal Yadav, Adv.
For the opposite party No.2:-
Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Adv.,
Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv.
For the State:-
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Rudradipto Nandy, Adv.,
Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Adv.,
Mr. Anand Kesari, Adv.
This is an application filed by the
petitioners/accused persons praying for modification of an
order dated 27th September, 2022 passed by this Court to
enable the petitioner to travel abroad especially for their
business and medical requirements as and when required
without subjecting the petitioners to require a prior
permission before this Court or the trial court on such
terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and
proper and also for suspension of Look Out Circular (LOC)
issued against the petitioners.
In order to dispose of the instant application it is
necessary to bring on record the factual background
leading to involvement of the petitioners No.1 and 2 in
connection with Raniganj Police Station G.D Entry No.681
2
dated 11th May, 2022 under Section 41 Cr.P.C read with
Section 379/411 of the IPC.
The Inspector-in-Charge, Raniganj Police Station
submitted a report before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman on 17th May, 2022
alleging, inter alia, that on 11th May, 2022 at about 5.50
pm in course of a Naka Checking duty at Sahebganj More
under Raniganj Police Station, the police party
introspected one black coloured four wheeler with four
persons travelling in the said car including the driver.
After detention, the on duty police officer asked their
names and identities, which they disclosed. Thereafter, on
search they recovered three bags containing huge amount
of currency notes amounting to Rs.3.2 crores. The persons
were detained in the car and brought to Raniganj Police
Station on reasonable apprehension that the said persons
obtained such huge amount of money fraudulently or that
the said money was either stolen or illegally obtained.
Therefore, the Inspector-in-Charge, Raniganj Police
Station seized the said currency notes and a thorough
inquiry was made in order to ascertain the source of the
seized money.
It is reported by one Sudip Dasgupta, Inspector-in-
Charge of Raniganj Police Station in his report dated 17th
May, 2022 that during inquiry the said three persons
made different statements at different points of time and
tried to mislead the police. They also tried to influence the
inquiry by various ways. During inquiry and statements of
the said persons it came to the knowledge of reporting
officer that some financial institutions are involved in the
case of money laundering. One of such institutions is
"Bonanza Fashion Merchants Private Limited" at Sunny
Valley Apartment, Flat No.1A, Block 484, Uttar Purba
Fartabad, Sahapada near Tirtha Club, Kolkata, West
3
Bengal. The Inspector-in-Charge, Raniganj Police Station
prayed for an order of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman to cause inquiry of the
case and financial records of Bonanza Fashion Merchants
Private Limited and also prayed for issuance of search
warrant against the said company.
Subsequently, Narendrapur P.S Case No.573 of
2022 corresponding to GR Case No.3467 of 2022 under
Section 120B/465/467/468/471/417/419/420 IPC and
Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act
was instituted against the petitioner No.2.
Institution of Narendrapur P.S Case No.573 of 2022
was based on the basis of a complaint lodged by one
Arunava Adhikary alleging, inter alia, that the Directors of
Bonanza Fashion Merchants Private Limited, being the
petitioner No.1 and 2 herein created the above mentioned
company using the address of his rented house as its
place of business for the purpose of registration before the
Registrar of Companies by committing theft of his
credentials.
During investigation a team of CID, West Bengal
visited Mumbai and found that the petitioner No.2 had left
the country and went away abroad. They conducted
search in the residential house of petitioner No.2 and
found two numbers of credit cards. The Inspector, CID,
accordingly, prayed for blocking the said credit cards
which petitioner No.2 was using from his temporary abode
in abroad. On the prayer of CID, West Bengal, Look Out
Circular was issued against the petitioners No.1 and 2. On
24th July, 2022 petitioner No.1 was detained at Mumbai
Airport on the strength of LOC issued by the CID. She was
arrested and subsequently released on bail on condition to
deliver his passport to the Investigating Officer.
Subsequently, office of the petitioners at Mumbai was
4
searched by the CID Officers on 26th July, 2022. Notice
was given to the petitioners directing them to remain
present at their house on 8th August, 2022 for the purpose
of investigation. However, no officer came there on that
date for conducting search. On 15th August, 2022 the
Investigating Officer of the case, i.e., opposite party No.3
prayed for warrant of arrest against the petitioners.
Warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner No.2.
Facts remains that the petitioner No.2 till date has
not appeared before the trial court and secondly he did not obtain an order of bail from the jurisdictional Magistrate.
Under such factual backdrop the prayer for the petitioner is required to be looked into.
It is needless to say that Narendrapur P.S Case No.573 of 2022 was registered on the basis of a written complaint made by one Arunava Adhikary against the petitioners. Subsequently, by filing CRR 2886 of 2023 the defacto complainant, namely, Arunava Adhikary pleaded that he was forced to lodge a false complaint against the petitioners/accused persons and at present he wants to withdraw the said complaint. The said criminal revision has not been disposed as of yet and record of the case is tagged with CRR No.3629 of 2022.
Be that as it may, it is at least ascertained from the averment made by the said Arunava Adhikary, defacto complainant of Narendrapur P.S Case No.573 of 2022 that he himself does not support his previous allegation made against the petitioners. This has practically diluted the importance of the Narendrapur P.S Case No.573 of 2022.
Now comes the question regarding involvement of the petitioners in the offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It is the case of prosecution that on 11th May, 2022 police attached to Ballavpur outpost under 5 Raniganj Police Station apprehended three persons and recovered an amount of Rs.3.2 crores kept in three bags from the boot space of a car in which they were travelling. On 17th May, 2022 the Officer-in-Charge Raniganj Police Station submitted a report to the effect that the Bonanza Fashion Merchants Private Limited is involved in money laundering.
It has not been considered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman that if an allegation of money laundering is made, it is required to be shown prima facie that the money which was recovered allegedly on 11th May, 2022 was proceeds of crime. Secondly, the accused persons including the petitioners were trying to conceal, illegally possessed, acquire, use, product or claim the said money as untainted property. Till date, no such evidence could be collected either by the police attached to Raniganj Police Station or by CID, West Bengal. Thirdly, the police has no authority to investigate into any allegation of money laundering. It is surprising to note that when the Officer-in-Charge of Raniganj Police Station prima facie found that the money recovered from the possession of the said three persons on 11th May, 2022 are proceeds of crime why was the case not transferred to the Enforcement Directorate for recording ECIR against the petitioners. Thus, on careful perusal of the entire materials on record it appears to this Court that allegation of involvement of Bonanza Fashion Merchants Private Limited and its director in money laundering as well as the allegations made in the Narendrapur P.S Case No.573 of 2022 appear to be frivolous, if not false and till date the Investigating Agency has failed to produce any material evidence against the petitioners.
It is strenuously contended on behalf of the opposite party through Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned Senior 6 Counsel that under the facts and circumstances of the case LOC should not be withdrawn. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner is not cooperating in disclosing facts. However, the Investigating Agency was able to collect evidence to establish prima facie that there was forgery of documents in respect of no objection certificate, purportedly issued by the landlord for the flat in Kolkata, which is supposed to be the registered officer of Bonanza. The petitioners fraudulently and dishonestly used the said no objection certificate before the ROC, Kolkata with an intention to get the support of the claim in respect of registered address of the said company. Not a single employee was engaged at Kolkata office of Bonanza. The company had no trade licence. It has not been registered with GST in West Bengal. The company evaded tax payable to the State of West Bengal and thereby caused loss of revenue of the State. The petitioners being the directors of the company and their accountant manufactured fake documents containing fake information regarding the conduct of General Body Meetings at the registered officer and filed them to deceive the government authorities with ill motives.
Mr. Ganguly also submits that the petitioner never appeared before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Baruipur seeking bail in connection with Narendrapur P.S Case No.573 of 2022. The petitioners have also been arraigned as accused persons in two more criminal cases initiated by different Investigating Agencies in Mumbai and therefore they are habitual offenders. If at this stage the LOC of petitioner No.2 is withdrawn there is every chance that he may flee away from the clutches of the court and administration of criminal justice will be at its peril under sweet desire and corpus of the petitioner No.2. They are accused persons in cases under Prevention 7 of Corruption Act. Considering all such circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has raised serious objection against the prayer for withdrawal of LOC against the petitioner No.2.
Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner refers to a decision reported in ILR (2010) VI Delhi 706, Sumer Singh Salkan vs. Assistant Director & Ors. In paragraph 11 of the said report, the learned Judge was pleased to formulate the following questions:-
"A. What are the categories of cases in which the investigating agency can seek recourse of Lookout- Circular and under what circumstances?
B. What procedure is required to be followed by the investigating agency before opening a Lookout- circular?
C. What is the remedy available to the person against whom such Look-out-Circular has been opened?
D. What is the role of the concerned Court when such a case is brought before it and under what circumstances, the subordinate courts can intervene?"
The above mentioned questions were answered as hereunder:-
"A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.
B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect.8
C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing before I.O. or should surrender before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned. D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts' jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of non-bailable warrants or affirming non-bailable warrants."
For the reasons stated above and in view of the discussion made in the forgoing paragraphs this Court has come to the conclusion that the Investigating Agency has failed to relate Bonanza Fashion Merchants Private Limited and its directors with the tainted money which was recovered from the possession of three persons on 11th May, 2022. The said persons did not make any statement to the effect that they received the said money from Bonanza or its directors. Secondly, the Investigating Agency failed to collect any material to prove even prima facie that the money which was recovered on 11th May, 2022 are proceeds of crime collected or acquired by Bonanza. Therefore, till date the petitioners cannot be tagged with any case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Police did not make any approach to the Enforcement Directorate to initiate ECIR against the petitioners.
Furthermore, Narendrapur P.S Case No.573 of 2022 has been diluted when the defacto complainant retracted from his written complaint and approached this Court by 9 filing a criminal revision with a prayer to quash the said proceeding alleging, inter alia, that he was forced to lodge a complaint against the petitioners. It is of course submitted on behalf of the prosecution that Arunava Adhikary was gained over by the petitioners. However, at the time of hearing of this application the prosecution failed to produce any document or evidence to show that the defacto complainant of Narendrapur P.S Case No.573 of 2022 was gained over.
In view of such circumstances and relying on the ratio laid down in paragraph 11 of the Sumer Singh Salkan (supra) this Court is of the view that the LOC issued against the petitioners is liable to be suspended. Accordingly, the order dated 27th September, 2022 passed by this Court is modified permitting the petitioner to visit abroad on the medical ground of petitioner No.2 as well as on the ground of his business.
Since this Court has come to a decision that both the criminal cases instituted against the petitioner has been diluted under the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner No.2 is directed to surrender before the trial court and pray for regular bail.
The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur shall consider the prayer for bail of the petitioner in accordance with law and if the order of bail is granted, the learned Magistrate shall also pass an order of withdrawal of LOC.
The instant application is accordingly disposed of on contest.
Parties are at liberty to act on the server copy of the order.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)