Bombay High Court
Mohammed Farooq Mohammed Hanif Shaikh vs Union Of India And Anr on 26 March, 2024
Bench: Prakash D. Naik, N.R. Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:16278-DB
Digitally
signed by
MANGALTAI
MANGALTAI JAYWANT 2-WP-2938-23.odt
JAYWANT JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2024.04.05
17:29:56
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2938 OF 2023
Mohammed Farooque Hanif Shaikh ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and anr. ... Respondents
.........
Mr. Rajiv Chavan, Senior Advocate a/w Pravin Bhoi a/w Shweta
Rathod i/b Elixir Legal Services for the Petitioner.
Mr. D. P. Singh, Spl. PP a/w Kuldeep Patil for CBI- Respondent
No. 1.
Ms. K. T. Hivrale, APP for the State.
.........
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK &
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : 26.03.2024
P.C. :-
The petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution
of India challenging the FIR bearing No. RC0682017E0004
dated 13.05.2017 registered by Central Bureau of Investigation
for offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420 of Indian Penal Code
and Sections 13(2)r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act
and charge-sheet filed in CBI Special Case No. 519 of 2022.
2. The case of the prosecution emanating from FIR is as
follows:
"(I) Reliable information was received that Shri Manish
Shyamdasani and Mungaram Dewasi, both Board Directors of
MJ Jadhav 1 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
M/s Stelkon Infratel Private Limited has indulged in large scale
illegal foreign remittances under fraudulent imports of goods
during 2015-16. Many of the transactions through RTGS & NEFT
were effected through current account No. 3735005500340207
of M/s SIPL with Punjab National Bank, Mandvi Branch, Mumbai.
A total 187 remittances amounting to Rs. 463.74 crores have
been made through PNB Mandvi Branch, Mumbai against 25
import consignments with a declared value of Rs. 3.14 crores
from Nhava Sheva and Mumbai Port during the financial year
2015-16.
(II) In the similar manner, M/s SIPL made foreign exchange
remittance on 96 occasions totaling Rs. 216.38 crores using
bank accounts with Canara Bank, Nariman Point Branch, State
bank of Hyderabad, Fort Branch, Corporation Bank, Mandavi
Branch, Central Bank of India, Crawford-market Branch and
Axis bank, Mumbai.
(III) M/s SIPL remitted around Rs. 680.12 crores using the
aforesaid six bank accounts for imports, but actually, they have
filled only 25 bills of Entry during this period with a declared
value of Rs. 3.14 crores with Customs. Thus, an excess of Rs.
676.98 crores was illegitimately remitted abroad by M/s SIPL.
MJ Jadhav 2 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
(IV) 12 more companies/firms had adopted same modus
operandi for illegal foreign remittances. These 12 firms
remitted a total amount of Rs. 1572.70 crores abroad by
submitting non-existing/fake/forged import documents to the
banks. Thus, total amount of Rupees remitted abroad by said
12 firms and M/s Stelkon Infratel Pvt. Ltd. were 12 IEC holder,
928 remittances, amount of Rs. 1572,70,33,194 and Stelkon
Infratel Pvt. Ltd., 283 remittances and Rs. 6801170746. Thus,
total remittances were 1211 and total amount was Rs.
2252,82,03,940/-.
(V) As per the customs import date, M/s SIPL had made 20
imports of miscellaneous goods in 2015 and 5 imports in 2016
from Jawaharlal Nehru Port and Mumbai Ports.
(VI) Certain Bill of entry invoice number, name of the supplier,
the value entries and description of the goods are totally
different from those appearing in the documents submitted to
the Banks. For example against Bill of Entry No. 2349693 dated
24.08.2015 against invoice number STT 40825 dated
26.07.2015 for invoice Value of Rs. 11,12,227/- of M/s Shenzen
Taipingxing, 8 different remittance were effected total
amounting to Rs. 18,46,48,862/-. In other words the same bill
MJ Jadhav 3 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
of entry was submitted to the Bank on 8 different occasions,
each time with a different invoice and a corresponding
remittance was made. In some cases, the Bill of Entry number
and date submitted to the Bank did not appear in the import
data of customs as the same were filed by some other
importers.
(VII) The group of 13 firms/companies were operating several
current accounts in several branches in various banks located
in Opera House/Fort/Crawford Market. These firms were floated
using IEC's registration at fictitious/non-existent address. These
firms have imported miscellaneous consignments through JNPT
and Mumbai Port during the year 2015 and 2016. The amount
that remitted by these firms through banks is around Rs.
2252.82 crores while the value of actual import was to the tune
of only Rs. 24.64 crores.
(VIII) The modus operandi adopted by firms to fraudulently and
illegitimately remit foreign currency out of India is that, forged
Bill of Entry were presented to the Bank for effecting
remittances by these firms. In all cases details of the Bill of
Entry submitted to the Bank did not match with the customs
import data. The other details like the invoice number and
MJ Jadhav 4 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
details, name of the supplier, description of goods and value
appears to be completely different from the customs data. In
certain cases, the same Bill of Entry was submitted to different
banks and money was remitted aginst it. For example, M/s SIPL
had presented 25 Bill of Entry with total assessable value of Rs.
3,13,69,136/- to Punjab National Bank and same Bill of Entry
was presented to the other banks as well. In some cases the
Bill of Entry of an unrelated importer were presented to the
Bank and money was remitted abroad.
(IX) M/s SIPL submitted the same Bill of Entry to a single bank
and also to other Banks, on various occasions. As for example,
the Bill of Entry No. 2349693 dated 24.08.2015 filed by M/s
SIPL was submitted to the PNB, Mandvi Branch on 8 different
occasions. In all the cases, remittance were permitted by the
bank without any further verification. The same bill of entry
was submitted to Canara Bank on 26.08.2015 and also
submitted twice to Corporation Bank on 13.10.2015 and
16.10.2015.
(X) The RBI issued circulars regarding obligation of the
authorized dealers while remitting foreign exchange out of
India. These circulars state that the authorized dealer need to
MJ Jadhav 5 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
collect evidence of import from the purchaser of foreign
exchange. This is in the form of the exchange control. Copy of
the Bill of Entry alongwith full details of importer and import. If
the Banks have not exercised any due diligence in verifying the
genuineness of the importers and the documents that they
have submitted during the request for remittances.
(XI) The accused entered into criminal conspiracy with
unknown bank officials for trade based money laundering and
in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, they illegally
transferred funds out of India. The IECs appeared to have been
specifically procured for the purpose of money laundering and
caused loss to the foreign exchange reserve of the country and
the money so illegally remitted could be used for nefarious
activities."
3. Enforcement case information Report (ECIR) was
registered on 18.09.2017. The ECIR contains the allegations
reflected in FIR dated 13.05.2017. It was alleged that the
accused firms entered into criminal conspiracy with unknown
bank officials for trade based money laundering and in
pursuance of said criminal conspiracy, they illegally transferred
funds out of India. The IEC's appeared to have been specifically
MJ Jadhav 6 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
procured for the purpose of money laundering and caused loss
to the foreign exchange reserve of the country and the money
so illegally remitted could be used for nefarious activities.
Section 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC
Act have been included while registering FIR. The said sections
falls under paragraph No. 1 of Part A of the Scheduled offences
under Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002. Prima facie, a case for an offence of money laundering
(Section 3 of the PMLA 2002), punishable under Section 4 of
the said Act appears to have been made out which requires
investigation by the Directorate.
4. The petitioner was arrested in PMLA ECIR on 24.04.2018.
The petitioner preferred an application for bail before this
Court, viz. Criminal bail Application No. 1297 of 2018. The said
application was rejected by the learned single Judge of this
Court vide order dated 10.08.2018. While rejecting the
application, it was observed by this Court that, the record
indicate that, the applicant is directly associated with the eight
firms. The 13 companies have indulged into international
remittance on the basis of using bogus bill of entry, submitting
the same set of documents against multiple outward
MJ Jadhav 7 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
remittances under the veil of imports which were never made,
are the shell companies opened at the instance of the
applicant by luring people of small means or financial
resources by inducing them to part with their personal details
and the said person have been made proprietors of the said
commercial entities or the Directors of the companies by
making paltry payment to them. The statements of witnesses
recorded by the investigating agency clearly indicate that, it is
the applicant, who was not only associated with the said 13
firms but was also intermeddling in its operations. There is
sufficient material available on record to show the clear
complicity of the applicant.
5. The petitioner preferred SLP No. 6992 of 2018 before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. The petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court viz.
Writ Petition No. 2829 of 2019 citing ailment of his wife
alongwith medical certificate and prayed for permission to take
care of his wife. Vide order dated 06.06.2019, this Court had
observed that the certificate dated 06.06.2019 certifies the line
of treatment and that wife of petitioner is required to undergo
laparoscopy. No doubt, it shows that she would be advised bed-
MJ Jadhav 8 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
rest for 4-6 weeks. However, in the peculiar circumstances,
looking into the nature of the charges which the petitioner is
facing and also the fact that the bail application is rejected, the
Court is considering special circumstances in case of the
petitioner and therefore, petitioner was permitted to attend his
wife either in the hospital or at home. This would be permitted
by keeping the petitioner in custody of minimum 2 police
officials deputed by the Superintendent of the Taloja Central
Prison or any number as he deem fit. The petitioner was
permitted to avail the said liberty upto 18.06.2019. The
petitioner was permitted to produce on record the report
recording medical process of his wife and treatment undergone
by her. Vide separate order dated 10.06.2019, the petitioner
was permitted to avail the said liberty to visit his ailing wife at
hospital or house till 25.06.2019. Since the petitioner was not
permitted to avail the liberty till 10.06.2019, vide order dated
25.06.2019, it was recorded by this Court, petitioner's wife
underwent Hysteroscopy on 18.06.2019 and she was
discharged on 19.06.2019. The liberty granted was extended
till 02.07.2019. The petitioner was directed to be admitted to
Taloja Central Prison on 03.07.2019.
MJ Jadhav 9 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
7. The petitioner moved the Apex Court. Vide order dated
03.07.2019, the Apex Court directed that the orders passed by
the High Court dated 06.06.2019 and 25.06.2019, in so far as
the custody of the petitioner is concerned shall continue until
further orders. The petitioner continued to be at home under
the supervision of two police officials as per orders of this
Court.
8. Investigation in FIR dated 13.05.2017 investigated by CBI
proceeded. Charge-sheet was filed on 19.05.2022 against
Mohd. Gous Shaikh, Kiran Kokare @ Sona Kalia, Mohd. Hussain
Shaikh @ Raja, Brijesh Lohiya and Ramesh Nagrajan for
offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC
and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act.
9. The CBI moved an application under Section 267 of Cr.P.C.
before the Special Court for issuance of production warrant to
take custody of petitioner by CBI for investigation. However,
the application was disposed of by Special Court for CBI cases.
Vide order dated 25.02.2022, it was observed that, Section 267
of Cr.P.C. contemplates requiring attendance of prisoners who
are confined or detained in prison, whereas in the present
case, a concession is granted to the accused as per order of
MJ Jadhav 10 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
High Court and Supreme Court to attend his wife. Hence, this is
not the case as per Section 267 of Cr.P.C. where the accused is
actually confined or detained in prison, who though deemed to
be in custody as per the order of the Court. However,
considering the seriousness of case, prosecution can be
permitted to summon the accused for interrogation through jail
authority, after getting suitable orders from special PMLA Court
in whose custody at present the accused is.
10. The petitioner filed three applications vide Exhibit- 86, 88
and 89 before the PMLA Court. Vide Exhibit- 86, he prayed to
note the conduct of investigating agency and contended that
order of Supreme Court is flouted. In Exhibit- 88, he prayed to
refrain CBI officials from adopting coercive methods against his
relatives and him. In Exhibit-90, he made similar allegations,
that CBI officials visited the house of his father-in-law and
carried out search and they have been harassing his family for
no reason. He sought direction to CBI to refrain from adopting
coercive method. CBI filed say. The Special PMLA Court vide
order dated 16.03.2022 observed that, the petitioner filed two
affidavits Exhibit- 94 and 95. Exhibit-94 is filed by Pramod
Savale, Police Staff and affidavit Exhibit-95 filed by petitioner.
MJ Jadhav 11 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
Pramod Savale is deputed for custody of accused No. 1.
Petitioner produced pendrives. The Court observed that CBI
cannot interfere in arrangements directed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court. The petitioner was permitted to keep the grievance in
his applications Exhibit- 88 and 90 before CBI Court.
11. The application preferred by Enforcement Directorate was
heard by Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order dated
28.04.2023, it was observed that, the petitioner is willing to
pay the amount towards police guard. The Court observed that
there is no ground recall or modify order. On the issue in the
given scenario, whether petitioner can be granted bail instead
of keeping him under house arrest, learned ASG stated that he
has no objection.
12. The petitioner preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 1153 of
2023 before this Court. The petitioner challenged the
proceedings under PMLA. Vide order dated 05.12.2023, the
petition was admitted. Interim relief was granted. The
petitioner was directed to be released on bail on the ground
that prolonged custody amounts to infringement or violation of
Article 21 of Constitution of India. It was held that house arrest
is ultimately arrest of a person, whereby his liberty to be free
MJ Jadhav 12 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
person is ultimately curtailed by operation of law.
13. The petitioner filed complaint before PMLA Court on
23.03.2022 with a prayer to direct Dongri Police Station to
investigate the incident that occurred on 14.03.2022. The
Police filed report, stating that no evidence surfaced about the
demand of illegal gratification by Nilesh Satam from accused.
14. The order dated 25.02.2022 passed by Special Court was
challenged before this Court by preferring Criminal Application
No. 348 of 2022. Vide order dated 11.12.2023, the application
was disposed of. It was observed that, the division Bench
granted bail to accused vide order dated 05.12.2023. However,
bail bond has not been executed. When the impugned order
was passed, the bail order did not exist. The trial Court shall
determine the consequences of bail order.
15. The petitioner preferred application for anticipatory bail
before this Court viz. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1936 of
2022 apprehending arrest in the present case. The CBI
opposed the prayer by filing counter Affidavit. The application
was pending for long time. Ultimately, it was withdrawn. The
petitioner preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 495 of 2023
MJ Jadhav 13 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
before this Court. Interim protection in the form of statement
by CBI was granted on 17.02.2023. Apparently, the petitioner
did not disclose that, he has preferred an application for
anticipatory bail before this Court.
16. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The
petitioner was arrested in PMLA case and after being in custody
and house arrest, he has been granted bail by this Court in that
case. Except some vague statements, there is no evidence
against the petitioner to show his involvement in the crime.
The petitioner is not named in the FIR. Investigation is
completed and the charge-sheet is filed. In the charge-sheet
the name of the petitioner appears at some places but there is
no cogent evidence to establish involvement of the petitioner
in the crime. The action of investigating agency suffers from
malafides. The petitioner was arrested in PMLA ECIR. The
petitioner was permitted to attend his ailing wife at hospital
and residence by posting police personnel. The order of this
Court was extended by Hon'ble Supreme Court. On
14.03.2022, police constable Pramod Savale reported for duty
with Mr. Satam. The behaviour of Mr. Satam was suspicious.
MJ Jadhav 14 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
He requested the petitioner to speak to him in private in study
room and told him that he had received message from higher
officials, who demanded Rs. 5 crores. Mr. Savale informed the
petitioner that Mr. Satam is from CBI. The petitioner
complained about the conduct of CBI before PMLA Court. The
petitioner and Mr. Savale filed affidavit. The PMLA Court vide
order dated 16.03.2022 noted conduct of CBI and directed
them to follow due process of law for seeking custody. The
petitioner has nothing to do with companies and in no way
connected with the same. The companies are sole
proprietorship firms, partnership irms or limited companies.
There is no credible material to demonstrate that the petitioner
was instrumental in either sending any remittances abroad or
submitting any forged import documents.
17. Learned Spl. PP Mr. D. P. Singh submitted that the
petitioner is involved in the crime. There is sufficient evidence
to show his involvement in the crime. During the course of
investigation, it was found that the petitioner has played vital
role. Investigation revealed that pursuant to conspiracy, the
petitioner and the other accused induced poor persons to share
their KYCs, by giving petty amounts and floated firms and
MJ Jadhav 15 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
companies in their names as Directors and Proprietors. The
said accused persons obtained IEC, VAT and other registrations
for 13 entities and opened current accounts in the branches of
Punjab National Bank, Canara Bank, Corporation Bank, e-State
Bank of Hyderabad, Central Bank of India and Axis Bank at
Mumbai. 23 current accounts were opened for accused entities
through the poor persons brought by Mohd. Gous at thebehest
of petitioner and four current accounts for the accused entities
by Mohd. Husain Hanif Shaikh. During 2014-2016, the
petitioner with assistance of Kiran Kokare @ Sona Kalia and
others collected huge amount of cash to the tune of Rs. 2252
crores from various entities wanted to send money to
Hongkong. The cash so collected layered through the bank
accounts, Angadias cheque discount brokers and through the
accounts of the members of multi State Co-operative Societies
and brought RTGS credits into the account of said 13 entities of
the said bank. Additional bank accounts were opened with
Central Bank of India and other banks for layering of cash
collected from various parties, who wanted to send money to
Hongkong for unknown purpose. The wife of the petitioner and
other's used to keep account of the money collected from
MJ Jadhav 16 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
sources in Mumbai, the money layered into bank accounts of
accused entities and the money sent to Hongkong as forex
remittance by submitting forged bill in the name of accused
entity from the above banks. The petitioner arranged low value
imports of chinese goods from Hongkong through namesake
accused entities and consignment cleared by filing Bill of entry
for the low value, online in EDI system of Jawaharlal National
Customs House (JNCH), Nhavasheva and New Customs House
(NCH), BPT, Mumbai. The value of the imported consignments
in USD, declared in Bills of Entry filed for these entities is very
less.
18. Investigation revealed that in order to send huge foreign
remittance in USD illegally to Hongkong, the petitioner
alongwith Brijesh Lohia and others, prepared forged Bill of
Entries for the namesake firms in the same serial number with
inflated high USD Value of the consignment and other details
and affixed forged seals and signatures of the custom officers
of JNCH, Nhavasheva and NCH Mumbai. The petitioner
alongwith other auccsed prepared forged invoices of Chinese
supplier for high Value and forged Bills of ladding and other
documents and submitted to the six banks between 2014-16.
MJ Jadhav 17 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
The required funds were layered into the accounts of the said
accused entities. The Banks converted the INR into USD as per
the exchange rate and sent forex remittances on the USD
Value found in the forged Bills of Entry, Invoice to various
entities in Hongkong. The goods imported was for a less value,
but the money sent abroad by suing the forged BE is of more
value. Based on the forged Bills of Entry and invoices, a heavy
amount of USD equivalent to Rs. 2188.32 crores approximately
were sent on 1173 occasions from the accounts of 12 entities
in six banks to various entities in Hongkong, holding account
with HSBC, Hongkong and caused loss of forex in USD
equivalent to Rs. 2188.32 crores. The petitioner had master
minded, the grave economic offence, by sending huge amount
of money from India running into several thousand crores of
Rupees to various entities in Hongkong by using forged import
documents and earning a commission for the same. Charge-
sheet was filed on 19.05.2022 against Mohd. Gous Shaikh,
Kiran Kokare @ Sona Kalia, Mohd. Hussain Shaikh @ Raja,
Brijesh Lohiya and Ramesh Nagrajan under Section 120-B, 420,
465, 468 and 471 of IPC r/w Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act.
19. It is further submitted that the petitioner had preferred an
MJ Jadhav 18 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
application for anticipatory bail bearing No. 1936 of 2022. The
said application was listed on several occasions, but the
petitioner failed to address arguments on the application.
Interim relief was sought in Writ Petition No. 495 of 2023 on
17.02.2023. The anticipatory bail application was withdrawn on
12.09.2023. The pendency of anticipatory bail application was
suppressed from this Court on 17.02.2023. The petitioner has
been under house arrest since June 2019 to attend his ailing
wife. The wife of petitioners was arrested on 24.04.2022. She
was found fit and normal during the course of her medical
examination in police custody at K. B. Bhabha Hospital. Copies
of medical certificate dated 24.05.2022, 26.05.2022,
28.05.2022 and 30.05.2022 are annexed to the affidavit in
reply. CBI felt necessity of petitioner custodial interrogation and
accordingly sought his production under Section 267 of Cr.P.C.
The application was not allowed and vide order dated
25.02.2022, liberty was granted to approach Spl. Judge PMLA.
The petitioner continues to scuttle the investigation. The
petitioner created concocted story of demand of illegal
gratification by Nilesh Satam. The petitioner filed two affidavits
alleging incident dated 14.03.2022 before PMLA Court. Vide
MJ Jadhav 19 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
order dated 16.03.2022, the Court directed petitioner to file
grievance before CBI Court. The petitioner filed complaint with
two affidavits before PMLA Court with a prayer to direct Dongri
Police Station to investigate the incident dated 14.03.2022.
Dongri Police Station filed report on 19.04.2022 that no
evidence of demand of illegal gratification surfaced. The
petitioner has suppressed vital facts. Custodial interrogation of
petitioner is necessary. The offence is serious. The petition may
be dismissed.
20. We have perused the FIR and the charge-sheet. Although,
the FIR was registered for offence under under Sections 120-B
r/w 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1) (d) and
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The final report indicate
addition of Sections 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
21. The prosecution case is that, investigation revealed that
during the period from 2014-16, the petitioner and the other
accused had entered into conspiracy in the matter of sending
remittance of huge amount of forex illegally to Hongkong by
submitting forged bill of entries with high USD value to various
banks under the guise of import payments to various entities in
Hongkong and thereby the accused persons earned
MJ Jadhav 20 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
commission.
22. In pursuance of the conspiracy, at the relevant period and
at place, in order to escape from the legal consequences, the
petitioner, Mohd. Gous by themselves as well as through
agents, induced name lenders by obtaining their KYCs for a
petty consideration and thereby floated nine accused
commercial entities/companies with them as Proprietors and
Directors and arranged import export code (IEC) and other
statutory registration for several entities.
23. Investigation revealed that, the petitioner and
Mohd. Gous induced various name lenders for an amount
around Rs. 1000/- to part with their KYCs, obtained IECs and
floated nine accused entities. Mohd. Gous at the behest of
petitioner briefed the name lenders to tell Bank officers that
they are going to do import business from china. Mohd. Gous
produced the name lenders with KYC's before the bank officials
and got arranged opening bank accounts for the accused
entities in the said banks. Shri Ramesh Nagrajan worked as a
Chief Manager in Central Bank of India from 02.06.2014 to
28.04.2016. In connivance with other accused he opened 7
accounts for the accused entities through poor persons brought
MJ Jadhav 21 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
by Mohd. Gous, Mohd. Husain Hanif Shaikh @ Raja was
rendering his active participation in the illegal Forex
remittance. The petitioner was earlier doing imports of Chinese
goods.
24. Petitioner had maintained offices at Surat and other
places and appointed persons to prepare forged BEs and other
documents with the assistance of the other ladies staff. The
wife of the petitioner used to manage the working of the staff,
in addition to maintaining the accounts of cash collected,
layered and the amount sent to Hongkong and the income of
the petitioner.
25. After small-scale imports, the petitioner had obtained the
ECC bill of entry of the said entities with low value from the
CHAs for preparing forged BE. When more BEs are required,
Brijesh Lohiya used to furnish the bill of entry number of the
imports made by the other entities. He used to provide
computer generated format of BE's stamps of customs officers,
Invoice models of chinese suppliers, Bill of lading etc. to
petitioner.
26. As per the instructions of the petitioner, the other persons
collected stationary for preparing forged Bill of Entries and
MJ Jadhav 22 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
stationary for preparing bill of lading. Rubber stamps of
customs officers of JNCH, Nhavasheva and NCH, Mumbai, letter
heads and rubber stamps of Prop/Director of various name
sake entities, flex name boards of the name sake entities
floated by petitioner. As instructed by petitioner, Smt. Bushra
and Smt. Nazneen prepared forged Bill of Entry with same
serial number allotted by EDI in the name of accused entity, in
the system and filled up the in floated USD Value as per the
requirement of the money, to be sent as forex remittance to
Hongkong and mentioned the tie up party at Hongkong as
consignor, so as to distribute the funds.
27. The investigation revealed that USD value will be inflated
manifold 20-30 times than the actual value of the consignment
to send more money. Further, the actual consignor name in the
genuine bill of entry was changed with the name of the tie up
party as consignor, in the forged Bill of Entry. This is to ensure
that the amount sent from Mumbai is distributed by the tie up
party to the relevant parties in Hongkong.
28. Print out of forged BE was taken on dot-matrix printer on
the stationery of custodian and Smt. Bushra and Smt. Nazneen
used to put the forged signatures and seals of the customs
MJ Jadhav 23 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
officers on the BE, forged signatures of the proprietors of the
entities on the import documents such as BE, invoice, bill of
lading etc. in token of attesting it. The bill of lading will be
prepared by using the serial number in the containers and
other details, photographed and sent by Kiran Kokare @ Sona
Kalia and Aatu Rehman Sabir Khan @ Moin Md.
29. Investigation revealed that to send more money the
petitioner had submitted forged bill Entries prepared by Smt.
Bhushra and Smt. Nazneen with same serial number with
different dates and different amount to more than one bank
and got the payment made multiple times. Further forged bill
of Entries with non-existing EDI serial number were also
submitted and forex payment made. The forged bill of Entry
commercial invoice, Bill of lading, Form A-1, Form 15-CA and
Form 15-CB alonwith covering letter of 8 entities were
submitted by the petitioner and others to Central Bank of India,
Punjab National Bank, Axis Bank, State Bank of Hyderabad,
Corporation Bank and Canara Bank and on that basis, forex
remittances were sent to various entities, holding account with
HSBC Bank Hongkong. Investigation revealed that the
petitioner had prepared and submitted 28 forged Bills of
MJ Jadhav 24 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
Entries and proforma Invoices in the name of M/s Lubeez
Enterprises with commercial invoice, Bill of Lading etc. against
the Bill of Entries, including 10 advance payments, 26 foreign
remittances in USD 7727092 to the tune of Rs. 492057063
during 2015-16 from the account of Lubeez Enterprises to
various entities. Lubeez Enterprises had actually imported
goods from Hongkong by filing 21 Bill of Entries in JNCH for the
total Value of USD 383716.67 equivalent to INR Rs. 39897947
and paid duty of Rs. 10235267. The petitioner prepared and
submitted 26 proforma invoices in the name of M/s Pawan
Enterprises with commercial invoice, B.L. etc., against Bill of
entries, including 10 advance payments, 26 foreign
remittances in USD 7270110 to the tune of Rs. 4699 crores
during 2015-16 were sent from account of Pawan Enterprises
to various entities holding amount with HSBC, Hongkong. The
petitioner prepared and submitted 37 forged Bills of Entry in
the anem of Lemon Trading Company with commercial Invoice,
B. L. etc, against Bill of Entries, including 13 advance
payments. 37 foreign remittances in USD 8089873 to the tune
of Rs. 521032994 were sent from the account of Lemon Trading
Company to various entities. The petitioner prepared 3 forged
MJ Jadhav 25 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
Bill of Entries in the name of Padalite Traders with commercial
Invoice, B.L., etc., against the Bill of Entries, USD 788443
equivalent to Rs. 4.89 crores sent from account of Pawan
Enterprises to various entities in Hongkong.
30. The charge-sheet and the document on record indicate
several incriminating circumstances showing participation and
involvement of the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the
petitioner is the master mind in the crime. Further investigation
is continuing to find out sources of funds and to trance role of
others.
31. The petition was filed on 21.02.2023. The petition was
sought to be amended vide order dated 20.02.2024. Vide
amendment, it was contended that on 14.03.2022 Mr. Nilesh
Satam requested the petitioner that he wants to speak to him
in private room and he demanded money on behalf of superior
for not causing harassment to petitioner his family. The
petitioner contends that his involvement is malafide. It is
pertinent to note that the petitioner was purportedly involved
in the fraudulent transactions from 2014 onwards. The custody
of petitioner was sought in present case by preferring
application in February 2022 and the said application was
MJ Jadhav 26 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
disposed of by order dated 25.02.2022. The alleged incident
about demand had occurred on 14.03.2022. Thus, the
application for production warrant and custody was preferred
prior to the alleged incident. The PMLA Court passed order
dated 16.03.2022 on the applications preferred by petitioner.
The petitioner has filed his affidavit and the affidavit of Mr.
Savale, the constable, who was on duty at petitioner's
residence. Both the affidavits are affirmed on 14.03.2022
before the same notary. The contention of respondents is that
Shri Ramesh Jadhav, P.I. was also in security duty to petitioner
on 14.03.2022 and available in the house of petitioner at the
time of the alleged incident. The petitioner has not referred to
his presence. The petitioner had furnished CCTV footages of his
hall inside his house on 14.03.2022, wherein two police
persons and CBI person alongwith petitioner were available
throughout. From the purport of CCTV footage of the hall
furnished by petitioner did not transpire the movement of
petitioner and Nilesh Satam from the hall to the study room,
wherein alleged incident had happened. The petitioner filed
same complaint enclosing said affidavit on 23.03.2022 with a
prayer to direct Dongri Police Station to investigate the incident
MJ Jadhav 27 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
dated 14.03.2022. The PMLA Court sought say/Report from
Dongri Police Station. The Report was filed by Dongri Police
Station on 19.04.2022 stating that their enquiry with Shri
Ramesh Jadhav and Shri B. Savle revealed that Shri Nilesh
Satam came for secret duty to keep watch on petitioner in
morning hours on 14.03.2022 and they were all present in the
hall alongwith the petitioner. They confirmed that Mr. Satam P.
C. did not meet the petitioner and did not demand any money.
They examined Nilesh Satam, who corroborates the version.
Dongri Police Station filed a port stating that no evidence
surfaced about the demand of illegal gratification by Nilesh
Satam from petitioner and they found that Mr. Satam had come
for secret duty to the house of petitioner. The PMLA Court
perused the report and passed order dated 19.04.2022
rejecting the complaint stating that the Court had previously
passed order dated 16.03.2022. The petitioner had suppressed
the aforesaid facts in his application for anticipatory bail. The
petitioner had suppressed the order dated 19.04.2022 and
report filed by Dongri Police Station in this petition.
32. There is ample material on record to link the petitioner to
the offences. The petition is devoid of merits. The petitioner is
MJ Jadhav 28 / 29
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::
2-WP-2938-23.odt
trying to scuttle investigation.
33. It is settled law that the power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly with circumspection. While quashing the
FIR or charge-sheet the Court is not expected to embark upon
an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations made in the FIR.
34. In the light of voluminous material showing involvement
of the petitioner, we are not inclined to grant the relief sought
in this petition. Resultantly, the petition has to be dismissed.
ORDER
. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2938 of 2023 is dismissed and disposed of.
( N.R. BORKAR, J.) (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MJ Jadhav 29 / 29 ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2024 02:09:35 :::