Delhi District Court
Cc No.1/2011 E.D. vs . Dr. Jeevan Kumar Etc. Page 1 Of 9 on 24 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. P.S. TEJI, DISTRICT JUDGE &
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, I/C (EAST), SPECIAL JUDGE
(PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT) :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
C.C. No.01/2011
ECIR No.ECIR/07/DZ/2008/AD(SC)/VM
Shri Prabhakant, Deputy Director
Directorate of Enforcement
Versus
(1)Dr. Jeevan Kumar
(2)Ms/ Anchal Papers Products (P) Ltd.
(3)Raghuvinder Singh
Director of M/s Anchal Papers Products (P) Ltd.
(4)Rajiv Chanana
Proprietor of M/s Land Crafts Developers
(5)Sanjay Gupta
O R D E R
Directorate of Enforcement has filed the present complaint under Section 44 read with Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "PML Act") against accused Dr. Jeevan Kumar, Raghuvinder Singh, Proprietor of M/s Anchal Paper Products (P) Ltd., Rajiv Chanana, Proprietor of M/s Land Crafts Developers and Sanjay Gupta for the offences under Section 3 & 4 of PML Act.
CC No.1/2011 E.D. Vs. Dr. Jeevan Kumar etc. Page 1 of 9 2 I have heard Ld. Special PP for Directorate of Enforcement as well as Ld. Counsels for accused persons on charge and have gone through the material available on record. 3 The allegations levelled in the present complaint are that accused Jeevan Kumar was involved in illegal racket of kidney transplantation and committed offences under Section 307 of IPC and under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 which are scheduled offences of PML Act. He was arrested by CBI and a police report No.RC 1(E)/08/CBI/EOU/VII dated 29.4.2008 was filed. It is alleged that accused Jeevan Kumar was not a qualified surgeon and hold a diploma in Homeopathy (DHMS). He used to assist his associate Amit Kumar in illegal kidney transplant surgeries. It was his only occupation and his entire earnings were from this source only. As per chargesheet filed by CBI in the Special Court of Ambala, Haryana, Amit Kumar obtained a degree of BAMS. He learnt the process of kidney transplantation by associating himself with the doctors in the field. Amit Kumar and his brother i.e. accused Jeevan Kumar hatched a criminal conspiracy with other accomplices and in pursuance thereof allured innocent poor people and fraudulently removed their kidneys through surgical operations and planted the CC No.1/2011 E.D. Vs. Dr. Jeevan Kumar etc. Page 2 of 9 same in the bodies of recipients for a huge monetary consideration. Accused Jeevan Kumar was not a qualified surgeon. Medical Council of India confirmed that accused Jeevan Kumar is not registered as practitioner of modern medicine. For the purpose of kidney transplantation operation, minimum qualification is Master of Surgery with three years experience. During investigation, it revealed that to avoid HLA/cross match tests from outside, accused Jeevan Kumar decided to develop this facility in the house. On the instructions of accused Jeevan Kumar, his driver Umesh Kumar contacted one Sunil, Laboratory Technician in AIIMS and arranged his services to conduct HLA tests in their hospital. For this purpose, costly equipments and other required items were purchased and HLA laboratory was setup in the hospital of Amit Kumar. Hospital where kidney transplantation used to be done was even not registered with appropriate authority. Total ten victims and two prospective victims were located and examined. During search of house of accused, victims and recipients were found there. On an average Rs.12 to 15 lacs in cash was charged from Indian recipients and US $ 25,000 to US $ 30,000 from foreign recipients for kidney transplant. During investigation, it revealed that accused Jeevan Kumar purchased properties in the name of M/s CC No.1/2011 E.D. Vs. Dr. Jeevan Kumar etc. Page 3 of 9 Anchal Papers Products (P) Ltd. of which accused Raghuvinder Singh was a Director. Accused Jeevan Kumar also invested money by purchasing property in the name of accused Rajiv Chanana and Sanjay Gupta. It also revealed that all the accused were having shares in the properties purchased by accused Jeevan Kumar in their names. They assisted accused Jeevan Kumar in the offence of Money Laundering by being actually involved and actively connected with the proceeds of crime. The Directorate of Enforcement issued Provisional Attachment Order dated 9.9.2010 for attachment of properties and bank accounts of accused persons. It is submitted that the said Attachment Order has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 4.2.2011.
4 It is alleged that accused Jeevan Kumar owns a residential premises at ECII, C102, Essel Tower Complex, Gurgaon, Haryana for a sum of Rs. 34,00,000/ out of which he made initial payment of Rs. 4,00,000/ and Rs. 30,00,000/ were got financed from Standard Chartered Bank. It is also alleged that accused Jeevan Kumar owns a plot No. 77, Ecotech Greater Noida, UP which was allotted to M/s Anchal Papers (P) Ltd, proprietorship concern of accused Raghuvinder Singh. It is alleged that initially the said plot CC No.1/2011 E.D. Vs. Dr. Jeevan Kumar etc. Page 4 of 9 was allotted to accused Raghuvinder Singh in which accused Jeevan Kumar and Sanjay Gupta invested money and made payment of Rs. 36,00,000/ to Raghuvinder Singh and Greater Noida Authority. It is also alleged that accused Jeevan Kumar invested the proceeds of crime in the property No. E86,NDSE, Part I, New Delhi. It is alleged that the said property was purchased by accused Rajiv Chanana in which investments were made by accused Jeevan Kumar by preparing a GPA in the joint name of his wife Pooja and accused Rajiv Chanana, but when the case was registered against accused Jeevan Kumar, he got prepared another GPA in the name of accused Rajiv Chanana without any consideration. It is also alleged against accused Jeevan Kumar that he deposited US $ in his bank account.
5 Accused Jeevan Kumar is having three bank accounts in which it is alleged that he made several transactions. The details of bank accounts of accused Rajiv Chanana and his firm M/s Land Crafts Developers. It is also alleged that accused Jeevan Kumar paid Rs. 30,00,000/ as security to Jammu Development Authority for development of commercial site measuring 11.2 kanals at BC Road, Jammu. It is also alleged that accused invested proceeds of crime for purchasing second and third floor of B153, East of Kailash, New Delhi in the name of Ruchi Chanana, wife of accused Rajiv Chanana. CC No.1/2011 E.D. Vs. Dr. Jeevan Kumar etc. Page 5 of 9 During course of investigation, it revealed that accused Rajiv Chanana made payment of Rs. 55/ lacs to the owner of said building which was proceed of crime received by him from the sale of flat at E86, NDSE, PartI, New Delhi in which investment was made by accused Jeevan Kumar.
6 The Enforcement Directorate also filed documents along with the complaint. The said documents are with regard to movable and immovable properties acquired by accused persons. These documents include statements of accused persons recorded by Enforcement Directorate after getting permission from the Court and the attachment orders of properties. Documents also include reports of Govt. Valuer and the statements of account of accused persons. 7 Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajiv Chanana has argued that there is no material against accused to frame charge against him and he is liable to be discharged. He has further argued that the time of framing charge, Court is required to see if two views are possible, one favouring accused, the benefit of doubt be given to the accused and he be discharged. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment in case of P.Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and another ( 2010) 2 SCC 398 in which it was observed that at the stage of section 227 CC No.1/2011 E.D. Vs. Dr. Jeevan Kumar etc. Page 6 of 9 Cr.P.C., the Judge has merely to sift evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused. He has further referred to authorities reported as Century Spinning & Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra 1972 AIR ( SC) 545, Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal 1979 AIR(SC) 366, Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra 2002 AIR(SCW) 146 and Ashok Kumar Nayyar vs. The State 2007 INDLAW DEL 408 in which it was observed that while framing the charge is required to see whether there exists sufficient evidence and material against accused for framing the charge or not. 8 On the other hand, Ld. Special PP for Directorate of Enforcement has argued that while framing the charge, the Court is required to see only prima facie evidence and not to go minutely into material placed before it. He has referred to judgment in case of Sanghi Brothers(Indore) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sanjay Choudhary and others ( 2008) 10 SCC 681 in which it was observed that strong suspicion is sufficient to frame charge. He has further relied upon judgment in case of Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India and another AIR 2005 SC 2920 in which it was observed that if any fact is especially within the knowledge of accused, he has to lead evidence to prove the CC No.1/2011 E.D. Vs. Dr. Jeevan Kumar etc. Page 7 of 9 said fact.
9 The authorities relied upon by the accused are of no help to him inasmuch as the prosecution has brought on record enough material that accused Rajiv Chanana used the proceeds of crime accumulated by accused Jeevan Kumar by investing the same in the properties, firstly in the joint name with the wife of accused Jeevan Kumar in respect of property bearing No. E86, NDSE Part I, New Delhi. Secondly, accused Rajeev Chanana got prepared second GPA in respect of said property in his sole name after registration of case against accused Jeevan Kumar and that is too without receipt of any consideration.
10 As per pronouncement in Sanghi brothers' case(supra), strong suspicion is sufficient to frame charge against an accused. In the present case, prosecution has placed sufficient material on record which shows that accused Jeevan Kumar acquired movable and immovable properties while indulging himself in illegal kidney transplantation and the other accused persons abetted him to invest the money being proceeds of crime.
11 As discussed above, the complainant/Directorate of Enforcement has brought sufficient material on record to show that accused Jeevan Kumar along with his other associates was actively CC No.1/2011 E.D. Vs. Dr. Jeevan Kumar etc. Page 8 of 9 involved in illegal kidney transplantation. It has also been shown that the accused was performing illegal kidney transplantation at a hospital which was also not registered with the Government. He used to perform illegal kidney transplantation surgeries on the victims allegedly arranged by his associates. It has also been shown that accused was not a qualified surgeon to carry out such surgeries. It has also been shown that by his said illegal activities, accused committed scheduled offences as mentioned in PML Act and the properties acquired by him are the proceeds of crime as defined under section 2(u) of PML Act. It has also been shown that accused Raghuvinder Singh, proprietor of M/s Anchal Papers Products (P) Ltd., accused Rajiv Chanana and Sanjay Gupta abetted accused Jeevan Kumar in investing his proceeds of crime in properties. Consequently, a prima facie case for charge under section 3 punishable under section 4 of PML Act is made out against accused Dr. Jeevan Kumar, Raghuvinder Singh, Rajiv Chanana and Sanjay Gupta. Charge be accordingly framed.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 24.04.2012 District Judge & ASJ, I/C(East)
Special Judge (PML Act)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
CC No.1/2011 E.D. Vs. Dr. Jeevan Kumar etc. Page 9 of 9