Jharkhand High Court
Uma Shankar Malviya vs State Of Jharkhand Through Directorate ... on 24 June, 2015
Author: H.C.Mishra
Bench: H.C.Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 2863 of 2015
-------
Uma Shankar Malviya .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand
through Directorate of Enforcement ..... Opposite Party
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA
-------
For the Petitioner : : M/s. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Sreenu Garapati, Manish Kumar
For the Directorate
of Enforcement : : M/s. Amit Kumar Das, A.P.P.
-------
2/ 24.06.2015. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with ECIR/02/PAT/09/AD(D), for the offence under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Initially a Vigilance P.S. Case No.9 of 2009 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 / 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7/ 10/ 11/ 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on the basis of a complaint filed by one Rajeev Sharma, in which Madhu Koda, the Ex-Chief-Minister of the State of Jharkhand and other persons, including Bhanu Pratap Shahi, Ex-Health Minister of the State of Jharkhand were made accused persons. While the said case was in the investigation state, a P.I.L. was filed in this Court and pursuant to the order dated 4.8.2010 in W.P. (P.I.L.) No.4700 of 2008, the investigation of the Vigilance Case was handed over to C.B.I., pursuant whereto, the C.B.I. registered the case as R.C.05(A)/2010/AHD-Ranchi and investigation was taken up. In the said case, the petitioner was also made an accused being the O.S.D. of Bhanu Pratap Shahi, the Ex-Health Minister of the State and charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner also, showing the involvement of the petitioner in making the donations in a trust, namely, Dehati Sthapana Nyas, which was a trust of Bhanu Pratap Shahi. It was alleged that donations were shown to be made in the said Dehati Sthapana Nyas by fictitious and non-existent persons. The statement of one Vinay Kumar Jalan, Chartered Accountant, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., showed that it was the petitioner, who brought the documents of the said trust to him for registration before the Income Tax Commissioner. It was the petitioner, who had furnished the list of fictitious donors and the PAN cards of those persons were also arranged and provided to him by the petitioner. Thus, on the basis of the F.I.R. in RC 5(A)/2010/AHD-Ranchi, the present case has been instituted by the Enforcement Directorate, as ECIR/02/PAT/2009/AD against the accused persons, including the petitioner.
-2-The petitioner has been made accused in the present case mainly on the basis of the aforesaid statement of the Chartered Accountant, namely, Vinay Kumar Jalan, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. During investigation the statement of one Prakash Kumar Singh was also recorded, in which it was stated that the Managing Trustee of the said trust, Bhanu Pratap Shahi assigned the responsibility to Sanjay Kumar Jha and the petitioner Uma Shankar Malviya of arranging the funds of Trust. The statement of Sanjay Kumar Jha also shows that he became the Trustee upon being told by the petitioner Uma Shankar Malviya, and he was handed over the blank receipt book of the Trust by Uma Shankar Malviya and he was told by Uma Shankar Malviya and Bhanu Pratap Shahi to fill up the names of the donors as per their verbal instructions in respect of the donors names given by them.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the evidence of Vinay Kumar Jalan, Chartered Accountant, was recorded in connection with the infamous fodder scam case, in which he had admitted to have prepared the forged PAN cards of about 800 persons himself and accordingly, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., on the basis of the said evidence against Vinay Kumar Jalan, which was dismissed by the Court below, against which the petitioner moved before this Court in Criminal Appeal ( S.J.) No. 960 of 2013, in which the matter has again been remanded back to the Court below for fresh consideration with certain directions. Learned counsel has also submitted that there is allegation against the petitioner mainly under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, which does not come under the scheduled offence. Learned counsel has also submitted that the allegation of only assisting, directly or indirectly, in projecting the tainted money as untainted property does not come within the purview of Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, and accordingly, no offence can be said to be made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel has accordingly, prayed for bail.
Learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement, on the other hand has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the involvement of the petitioner has been found in the case of money-laundering also, as the tainted money was shown to be untainted property, for which fictitious donors were created and PAN cards of those fictitious donors were prepared by him. Learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement has submitted that the action of the petitioner squarely comes within the purview of Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act and the offence is clearly made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court towards the materials collected during investigation which show the involvement of the petitioner in directly assisting Bhanu Pratap Shahi in projecting the tainted money as untainted property. Learned counsel for the -3- Directorate of Enforcement has also pointed out that the bail application of the co-accused Bhanu Pratap Shahi has already rejected by this Court and also by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel has accordingly, opposed the prayer for bail.
Having heard learned counsels for both the sides, I am not in a position to accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the actions of the petitioner shall not come within the purview of Section 3 of the Money Laundering Act.
Section 3 of the Money Laundering Act (pre-amendment) read as follows:-
"3. Offence of Money-Laundering.- Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists of knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money laundering."
There is direct allegation against the petitioner of directly assisting Bhanu Pratap Shahi for showing tainted money as untainted property and there is allegation against the petitioner that he was directly involved in creating fictitious donors and preparation of PAN cards of those fictitious donors for showing the investment of tainted money in the Dehati Sthapana Nyas. In my considered view the allegation against the petitioner clearly makes out the offence of Money-laundering as defined in the Act.
In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner Uma Shankar Malviya, is hereby rejected.
(H.C.Mishra, J.) D.S.