Madras High Court
P.Anand vs Assistant Director
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 23.11.2022
Delivered on : 01.12.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022
P.Anand Petitioner
Vs.
Assistant Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Government of India,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
Chennai Zonal Office-I,
2nd & 3rd Floor,
84, Murugesa Naicker Complex,
Greams Road, Thousand Lights,
Chennai 600 006. Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 read with
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2022 to enlarge the Petitioner on bail, who was arrested on
12.7.2022 and remanded to judicial custody on 13.7.2022 in ECIR
Nos.CEZO-I/05/2019, CEZO-I/37/2020 and CEZO-I/42/2020 on the file of
the respondent.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Sivanandaraj
Mr.C.Kathiravan
For Respondent : Mr.N.Ramesh,
Special Public Prosecutor (ED)
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested by the respondent on 12.7.2022 and remanded to judicial custody on 13.7.2022 for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Launder Act, 2002 in ECIR Nos.CEZO-I/05/2019, CEZO-I/37/2020 and CEZO-I/42/2020 on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.
2. The factual aspects in brief are as under:-
(i) Originally three separate complaints dated 1.11.2019, 8.9.2020 and 8.10.2020 were registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bangalore, against (i) Surana Industries Ltd and Promoters and Directors (ii) Surana Power Ltd and others and (iii) Surana Corporation Ltd. and others at the instance of the Bankers viz., IDBI and State Bank of India on their behalf and on behalf of other consortium lenders for misappropriation and criminal breach of trust, manipulation of books of accounts through fictitious accounts and conversion of property against unknown public servants, for 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(ii) The allegations levelled against the said Companies are that credit facilities were extended to those Companies to the tune of several crores at various stages from the year 1998. Later, due to macro-economic conditions, the Companies started facing severe liquidity issues and thereupon, restructure of liabilities was done and similarly short renewal of credit facilities was also made, however, the Companies had defaulted its interest servicing and repayment obligations to member banks and hence, the Companies were classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA) and the loans were recalled and notices were issued for invoking the personal guarantees of Promoters/Guarantors of the Companies and subsequently, the Companies were also liquidated.
(iii) Subsequently, Forensic Auditors were appointed to carry out Transaction Audit and they had observed certain unusual indicators/irregularities related to different transactions in their Report as under:-
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022
a) Several crores of rupees were given as capital advances to potentially related parties.
b) Majority of the trading transactions were executed with the potentially related parties with inadequate documentation, marginal/no collection, setting off balances through various adjustments and issuing of unwarranted payments.
c) Entered into fictitious transactions with parties related amongst themselves.
iv) On receipt of the Forensic Reports, the commission of fraud/misappropriation by the Companies and diversion of public funds came to light and it was exposed that the Companies were fraud ones and thereupon, the Complaints came to be lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation alleging that the aggregate amount of fraud comes to Rs.1083,14,35,709/- in respect of Surana Industries Limited, Rs.1495.76 crores in respect of Surana Power Limited and Rs.2930 crores in respect of Surana Corporation Limited.
v) Subsequently, the respondent had lodged the Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIR) and issued summons on 12.2.2021 to the 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 petitioner being the Designated Partner of Bell Tower Enterprises LLP to appear for enquiry. The petitioner had submitted his replies on 16.2.2021 and 22.2.2021. Second summon was also issued by the respondent on 14.2.2022 to which, the petitioner had replied on 16.2.2022. After exchange of such communications, the petitioner came to be arrested on 12.7.2022 and remanded to judicial custody on 13.7.2022.
(vi) The respondent had filed Crl.M.p.No.12223 of 2022 seeking custody of the petitioner and the petitioner had filed Crl.M.P.No.12116 of 2022 seeking bail before the Principal Sessions Judge (Special Court under PMLA 2002).
(vii) The Special Court had granted 48 hours custody to the respondent by its order dated 18.7.2022 and dismissed the bail petition by order dated 17.8.2022. Having failed in his attempt before the Special Court, the petitioner has come up before this court seeking bail.
3. Learned counsel Mr.J.Sivanandaraj appearing for the petitioner would submit his arguments as under:-
i) The arrest of the petitioner is arbitrary as he was not issued with any notice as required under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022
ii) The predicate offences charged with are for conspiracy and forgery of documents whereas the grounds of arrest do not make any mention about the petitioner committing any such offence except acquiring the windmills of Surana Green Power Limited and Surana Corporation Limited in a public auction conducted by State Bank of India by obtaining loans from Sayso Exim Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Natural Coal Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.Tribhovan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
iii) The petitioner had not approached any Banks seeking financial assistance and cheated the banks and hence, he is not connected with the alleged proceeds of crime and thus, he has not committed any offence under the PML Act.
iv) Merely because windmills were acquired by Bell Tower Enterprises LLP through the funds arranged from other entities viz., M/s.Sayso Exim Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Natural Coal Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.Tribhovan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, which had also been repaid, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case of money laundering without proving mens rea on the part of the petitioner.
v) The petitioner is not an accused either in the private complaint 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 lodged by the banks, FIRs registered by the CBI nor in the ECIRs registered by the respondent. Merely based on the statements of witnesses, which are subject to trial, the petitioner has been unlawfully detained in judicial custody for about 90 days.
vi) The petitioner has not committed an offence under Section 3 and 4 of PML Act as he had never been part of the management of Surana Corporation Limited, which is the prime entity in ECIR No.CEZO-I/42/2020.
vii) Even according to the prosecution, the petitioner has got a very poor IQ and an illiterate dummy acting on the whims of the main accused and thus, no offence could ever be made out under Section 3 of the PML Act.
viii) The object of the PML Act ultimately being to confiscate the properties that are tainted through the commission of offence of money laundering, even assuming that the petitioner has unknowingly laid his hands of proceeds of crime allegedly generated the loans received by Bell Tower Enterprises LLP, the same have been closed as of today and the loans have been repaid to the lender entities and hence, the alleged tainted monies are not in the hands of the petitioner and thus, custodial investigation or further custody of the petitioner is unnecessary.
7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022
ix) Even after conduct of investigation on multiple occasions, the respondent has not proved prima facie case case against the petitioner and the entire case for arrest and detaining the petitioner is based on assumptions and presumptions.
x) The petitioner is a law-abiding person having deep roots in Chennai without any criminal record. The accounts being duly audited, there is no reason or probable cause for the petitioner to tamper with any evidence. He would also not abscond or fly away from the investigation.
4. The learned counsel would heavily rely on the decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others vs. Union of India and others (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 on the aspect of mens rea, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"The successive decisions of this Court dealing with analogous provision have stated that the Court at the stage of considering the application for grant of bail, is expected to consider the question from the angle as to whether the accused was possessed of the requisite mens rea. The Court is not required to record 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 a positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence under the Act. The Court ought to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. The duty of the Court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. Further, the Court is required to record a finding as to the possibility of the accused committing a crime which is an offence under the Act after grant of bail."
5. The respondent has filed a detailed counter narrating the role of the petitioner in the offence and referring to the same, Mr.N.Ramesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ED cases would submit his arguments as under:-
i) The total amount misappropriated by the three Companies viz., Surana Industries Limited, Surana Corporation Limited and Surana Power Limited is to the tune of Rs.3986.08 Crores.
ii) The investigation conducted revealed that the above Companies, 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 through its Directors/Promoters and other officials have indulged in manipulation of book of accounts, indulging in paper transactions with shell companies to inflate the turnover of companies in order to get more credit facilities from the banks and thereafter, siphoning off the funds from the Companies accounts through those shell Companies for personal gains and thus indulged in the offence of money laundering. All the Directors/Partners/Proprietors of all those shell Companies were either the relatives, employees or residents of ancestral village of Rajasthan.
iii) The petitioner, a relative of the main accused Shri Dinesh Chand Surana, has been associated with various companies in the capacity of Director/Partner/Proprietor, which had huge transactions with the Surana Group of Companies. His profile is as under:-
Sl.No. Name of the Company Date of Date of Resignation Appointment 1 Sayso Exim Pvt. Ltd. 15.4.2015 21.5.2016 2 Thribhovan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 15.4.2015 21.5.2016 3 Vinayaga Infra Ltd. 9.7.2015 20.5.2016 4 C&S Tools Pvt. Ltd 12.10.2015 1.7.2016 5 Denwood Merchandising & 4.11.2014 20.3.2018 Industries Pvt. Ltd.
6 Para Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 1.10.2015 26.12.2016 7 D.J. Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 4.11.2014 26.12.2016 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 Sl.No. Name of the Company Date of Date of Resignation Appointment 8 Natural Coal Pvt. Ltd. 12.10.2015 1.7.2016 9 BLS Power Solutions Ltd. 9.7.2015 20.5.2016 10 Bell Tower Enterprises LLP 10.7.2015 continuing
iv) The petitioner is a dummy Director/Partner/Proprietor of the above Companies of the Surana Group and working on the behest of Shri.Dinesh Chand Surana.
v) The investigation revealed that Bell Tower Enterprises LLP had acquired 60 windmills of Surana Corporation Limited in the auction done by the State Bank of India for Rs.29.75 crores and funds for the same were arranged from the dummy companies controlled by Shri.Dinesh Chand Surana namely M/s.Sayso Exim Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Natural Coal Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.Tribhovan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. by appointing name lending Directors and the petitioner had been the Director in these Companies.
vi) The said Bell Tower Enterprises LLP had also acquired 7 windmills for Rs.20.58 crores from M/s.Surana Green Power Limited for which funds were arranged in the same manner.
vii) During the course of investigation, statements of the petitioner 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 were recorded under Section 50 of PML Act, wherein, he had admitted that he was made to sign documents and cheques and he had no role in the day to day functioning of the Company and the Companies do not belong to him and he has a meager income and thereby he is not in a position to run such a big business, however, he had retracted from his statements before the Directorate.
viii) By way of making such retractions and not revealing the true picture of the diverted proceeds of crime from Surana Group of Companies to the interlinked companies, he did not cooperate in the investigation to identify the proceeds of crime and establish the money trail.
ix) By projecting himself as the legal owner of Bell Tower Enterprises LLP, the petitioner is not only trying to protect Shri Dinesh Chand Surana but also to project the properties in the name of Bell Tower Enterprises LLP as untainted properties and thus, it is a classic case of money laundering wherein all ingredients of the offence of money laundering viz., "placement", "layering" i.e., moving of funds to other institutions to conceal origin and "integration" i.e., funds used to acquire assets.
x) During the course of investigation, a number of witnesses have 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 spoken to the effect that the petitioner is a benami of Shri Dinesh Chand Surana and exclusively, Shri K.E.Devarajan, Group Chief Accounts Officer cum Non Executive Director of Surana Industries Limited has stated that Bell Tower Enterprises LLP was created by Shri Dinesh Chand Surana with the sole purpose of getting the windmills of Surana Green Energy Limited and Surana Corporation Limited from the bank and funds were also routed through the shell companies under his control and the partner of Bell Tower Enterprises LLP is a relative of Shri Dinesh Chand Surana.
xi) Having arrived at a conclusion based on the materials available that the petitioner is guilty of offence of money laundering and there is every likelihood of his tampering with the evidence and thereby derailing the ongoing investigation, the petitioner was arrested.
xii) Shri Dinesh Chand Surana being the Managing Director of Surana Industries Limited and Surana Power Limited and Promoter of Surana Corporation Limited had laundered money by way of manipulating books of accounts, inflating the turnover by paper transactions with shell companies controlled by his dummies and thereafter, generated the proceeds of crime by way of cheating the banks. One of such transactions is that Shri 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 Dinesh Chand Surana had purchased 78 windmills already with the Surana Group, which were being auctioned by State Bank of India in the name of one of his shell companies by name Bell Tower Enterprises, LLP wherein, the petitioner, being one of his relative was the partner and arranged the funds through his other 3 shell companies viz., M/s.Sayso Exim Pvt. Ltd., M/s.Thribhovan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.Natural Coal Pvt. Ltd. It is a classic case of money laundering as all the ingredients of the offence of money laundering are present and thus, it requires systematic and analytical investigation.
xiii) The very fact that the petitioner pleads in his petition as if he was never part of the management of Surana Corporation Limited and purchased the windmills through loan arrangements with M/s.Sayso Exim Pvt. Ltd., M/s.Thribhovan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.Natural Coal Pvt. Ltd. and returned the same in due course establishes the case of money laundering as a person, who did not have any monetary capacity/expertise to run a business of renewable energy purchases the windmills of Surana Group in auction through funds arranged by three companies indirectly controlled by Shri Dinesh Chand Surana by appointing namesake Directors 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 including the petitioner.
xiv) The three Companies viz., M/s.Sayso Exim Pvt. Ltd., M/s.Thribhovan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.Natural Coal Pvt. Ltd. were used to launder money by Shri.Dinesh Chand Surana by making agreements for purchase of properties with one M/s.Kawarlal & Co and later, not registered the said agreements and the proceeds of crime were marked with M/s.Kawarlal & Co., and on enquiry, Shri.Ramlal, Proprietor of M/s.Kawarlal & Co had admitted that he was selling his properties to Shri Dinesh Chand Surana only, but, received the sale consideration from M/s.Sayso Exim Pvt. Ltd., M/s.Thribhovan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.Natural Coal Pvt. Ltd and the said Shri.Ramlal had some transactions with Bell Tower Enterprises LLP and he had stated that he had taken some unsecured loan as well as given loan to Bell Tower LLP as requested by Shri.Dinesh Chand Surana.
xv) The above factual aspects reveal that the petitioner, being a money lender, had abetted Shri Dinesh Chand Surana in exercise of money laundering.
xvi) Though the petitioner has been in very active connivance 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 with the main accused in the offence of money laundering, he is not revealing the true facts during his statements and hence, in the event of his release on bail, he would try to hamper and tamper with the ongoing investigation and frustrate the tracing of proceeds of crime.
xvii) The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is a stand- alone Act and is not subservient to the action taken by the Law Enforcement Agency administering the Scheduled Act. In terms of the provisions contained in the PML Act, only registration of FIR is the pre-requisite and afterwards the investigation under PML Act is independent and has no bearing of the investigation being conducted in the Scheduled offences as contemplated under the newly inserted explanation to Section 44 of PML Act, 2002. Further, foreign investments have been made by the main accused, which require further investigation in depth in the matter and the respondents have sought for permission to file additional/supplementary complaint on completion of further investigation in respect of remaining proceeds of crime.
xviii) The petitioner has not produced any material to show that he had complied with the twin conditions imposed under Section 45(1) of PML 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 Act, 2002 and thereby, he is not entitled to bail.
xix) Though the petitioner had appeared before the respondent whenever called, but, that itself does not tantamount to cooperation with the investigation and he had been concealing the money trail in the offence of money laundering. The arrest of the petitioner was under Section 19 of the PML Act and hence, there is no requirement of adhering to the provisions of Section 41 & 41A of Cr.P.C and there is no need of notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C.
xx) The petitioner is capable of tampering with the evidence in the event of his release on bail at this point of time when further investigation is going on and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence by this court.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
7. The petitioner is facing a serious charge of abetting the main accused, Surana Group of Companies in Money Laundering. The Surana Group of Companies (Surana GOC) consists of three flagship companies 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 namely Surana Industries Limited (SIL), Surana Corporation Limited (SCL) and Surana Power Limited (SPL) who have made bank borrowings and have been declared as Non Performing Assets (NPA) and are presently under liquidation, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Under IBC, the Liquidator had adjudicated the dues of the SIL, SCL and SPL and assessed a total liability of Rs.10,238 Crores.
8. Investigation into the scam had revealed that the Companies have made various false representations pertaining to revenue generation, share capital contribution and profitability of Surana GOC, based on which, public sector banks have lend monies to SIL, SCL & SPL and the total adjudicated financial liability of the three companies is Rs.10,238 Crores. The investigation has revealed various counts of siphoning of funds, diversion of funds and creation of assets utilizing siphoned out funds. The Companies had floated various shell, puppet Companies, Partnerships and Proprietorship by making its own employees as Directors, Partners and Proprietors respectively inside and outside India to siphon off crores of money to cause loss to the lending banks.
9. The investigation had revealed that the petitioner being a benami 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 of the main accused Shri Dinesh Chand Surana had abetted him in the offence of money laundering and thereby, he was arrested on 12.7.2022 and remanded to judicial custody on 13.7.2022. Aggrieved against that, the petitioner has come up with the present bail petition.
10. The petitioner pleads total ignorance about the money laundering and he claims to have lack of knowledge and acumen. He takes a stand that he has nothing to do with the Group of Companies and he had been made to sign in the documents which had been used for the business transactions and thus, he had no mens rea for committing any offence as alleged by the respondent to make out a case against him and to curtail his personal liberty.
11. The stand of the petitioner being so, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner is the culprit in the offence of round tripping of money and he had indulged in the business transactions with the Group of Companies with full knowledge of the consequences. It is the further case of the prosecution that the petitioner, having taken active participation in the offence, must know the money trail of the proceeds of crime, but, under the guise of illiteracy and innocence, he not only tries to escape from the 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 clutches of law, but also tries to prevent the investigation against the main accused and there is every likelihood of tampering of evidence to protect the main accused in the event of release of the petitioner in bail at this stage.
12. The issue before this court is whether the petitioner, who is alleged to have abetted the main accused in the offence of money laundering, is entitled for bail or not.
13. The main stand taken by the petitioner among other grounds is that he had no mens rea to commit the offence and thereby, he cannot be brought into the purview of Section 3 or 4 of the PML Act and in that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon an observation made by the Full Bench in Madanlal Choudhary and others vs. Union of India and others (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929.
14. The petitioner is charged with the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act. The case of the petitioner is that he had complied with the twin conditions of Section 45(1) of the PML Act, which reads as under:-
"45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an 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: Provided that a person who is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, may be released on bail, if the special court so directs:
Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by—
(i) the Director; or
(ii) any officer of the Central Government or State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or a special order made in this behalf by that Government."
15. If the court finds a prima facie case against the accused, it cannot come to a satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail as specified in Section 45(1)(ii) of the PML Act.
16. The petitioner claims to be an illiterate without adequate acumen and financial back up to run the Companies and hence and he is merely a name lender and he had not abetted in commission of offence with mens rea. An overall analysis of the stand taken by both sides, it appears that the petitioner intends to take advantage of his illiteracy and poor knowledge to seek for bail. But, a perusal of the materials would reveal that the petitioner had been associated with ten companies of Surana Group as Director/Partner/Proprietor from the year 2015, however he claims that he is an uneducated and he had no mens rea in abetting the offence while seeking bail. The petitioner is currently a Partner of Indian Company M/s.Bell Tower Enterprises LLP and in the past, he had associated himself with various Companies in the capacity of Director/Partner/Proprietor, which have had huge transactions with Surana Group of Companies. The list of Companies and period of his association with such Companies, as furnished in the counter filed by the respondent is reproduced hereunder for ready 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 reference:-
Sl.No. Name of the Company Date of Date of Resignation Appointment 1 Sayso Exim Pvt. Ltd. 15.4.2015 21.5.2016 2 Thribhovan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 15.4.2015 21.5.2016 3 Vinayaga Infra Ltd. 9.7.2015 20.5.2016 4 C&S Tools Pvt. Ltd 12.10.2015 1.7.2016 5 Denwood Merchandising & 4.11.2014 20.3.2018 Industries Pvt. Ltd.
6 Para Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 1.10.2015 26.12.2016 7 D.J. Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 4.11.2014 26.12.2016 8 Natural Coal Pvt. Ltd. 12.10.2015 1.7.2016 9 BLS Power Solutions Ltd. 9.7.2015 20.5.2016 10 Bell Tower Enterprises LLP 10.7.2015 continuing
17. To enlighten this court on the aspect of round-tripping of money, the respondent has furnished, in the counter, the details of transactions the three Companies, from whom the petitioner took financial assistance, had with the Surana Group Companies and other entites, which are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
(A) M/s.Natural Goal Pvt. Ltd.
Sl. Date of Debit amount Credit amount Particulars No. transaction 1 4.4.2015 15,00,00,000 Surana Industries Ltd.
2 4.4.2015 7,25,00,000 Dinesh Chand Surana
23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022
Sl. Date of Debit amount Credit amount Particulars
No. transaction
3 4.4.2015 7,75,00,000 Dinesh Chand Surana
4 4.4.2015 10,00,00,000 21-318499 (SIL)
5 4.4.2015 5,10,00,000 Dinesh Chand Surana
6 4.4.2015 4,90,00,000 Dinesh Chand Surana
7 4.4.2015 8,30,00,000 Surana Industries Ltd.
8 4.4.2015 8,30,00,000 Dinesh Chand Surana
9 8.4.2015 4,39,70,000 Thribovan Enterprise
10 8.4.2015 2,29,65,000 Sayso Exim
11 8.4.2015 2,10,00,000 Sayso Exim
12 9.4.2015 2,80,23,000 Surana Industries Ltd.
13 9.4.2015 2,80,23,000 Vijay Raj Surana
14 10.4.2015 2,14,12,000 Surana Industries Ltd.
15 10.4.2015 2,14,12,000 Vijay Raj Surana
16 10.4.2015 51,42,000 Surana Industries Ltd.
17 10.4.2015 51,42,000 Vijay Raj Surana
(B) M/s.Sayso Exim Pvt. Ltd.
Sl. Date of Debit amount Credit amount Particulars
No. transaction
1 3.10.2015 2,14,08,500 Surana Industries Ltd
2 3.10.2015 2,14,10,000 Surana Corporation Ltd
3 8.10.2015 2,99,99,000 Surana Industries Ltd
4 8.10.2015 3,00,00,000 Surana Corporation Ltd
5 8.10.2015 2,99,99,000 Surana Industries Ltd
6 8.10.2015 2,99,99,500 Surana Corporation Ltd
7 8.10.2015 2,99,99,200 Surana Corporation Ltd
8 8.10.2015 3,00,01,000 To tfr
24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022
Sl. Date of Debit amount Credit amount Particulars
No. transaction
9 12.10.2015 1,80,00,000 Thribovan
10 12.10.2015 1,20,00,000 Thribovan
11 12.10.2015 1,80,01,000 Surana Corporation Ltd
12 12.10.2015 1,20,00,500 Surana Corporation Ltd
13 13.10.2015 3,00,00,000 Natural Coal Pvt Ltd.
14 13.10.2015 3,00,00,000 Surana
15 13.10.2015 8,14,02,600 Surana Industries Ltd
16 13.10.2015 2,55,24,600 Surana Corporation Ltd
17 13.10.2015 2,56,75,400 Surana Corporation Ltd
18 13.10.2015 3,02,25,000 Surana Corporation Ltd
19 24.7.2014 40,00,000 Vinayaga Infa I Ltd.
20 24.7.2014 50,00,000 Vinayaga Infa I Ltd.
21 24.7.2014 50,00,000 Vinayaga Infa I Ltd.
22 25.7.2014 40,00,000 Surana Power Ltd.
23 25.7.2014 55,50,000 Surana Industries Ltd
24 25.7.2014 4,56,000 NDK Enterprises
25 25.7.2014 15,00,000 Surana Industries Ltd
26 25.7.2014 4,17,000 Sri Balaji Khem Products
27 27.12.2014 1,88,46,976 Natural Coal Pvt Ltd.
28 27.12.2014 50,00,000 Natural Coal Pvt Ltd.
29 29.12.2014 1,81,12,100 Rajul Raj Trading
30 29.12.2014 50,00,000 Surana Power Ltd.
31 29.12.2014 1,79,95,000 Sri Balaji Khem Products
32 29.12.2014 1,50,00,000 Surana Industries Ltd
33 30.12.2014 4,77,50,000 Sri Balaji Khem Products
34 30.12.2014 5,10,00,000 Surana Industries Ltd
35 2.1.2015 5,10,00,000 Sayso Exim
36 2.1.2015 5,10,00,000 Surana Industries Ltd
25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022
Sl. Date of Debit amount Credit amount Particulars
No. transaction
37 6.7.2016 1,25,63,775 Surana Corporation Ltd
38 6.7.2016 1,20,14,200 Bell Tower Enterprise LLP
39 6.7.2016 10,52,000 Surana Industries Ltd
(C) M/s.Thribovan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Sl. Date of Debit amount Credit amount Particulars
No. transaction
1 3.4.2014 2,00,00,000 Surana Industries Ltd
2 3.4.2014 2,00,00,000 Vinayaga Infra
3 8.9.2014 2,30,00,000 Surana Industries Ltd
4 9.9.2014 2,30,00,000 Shri Balaji Khem Products
5 10.1.2015 4,05,00,000 Surana Industries Ltd
6 10.1.2015 3,00,000 Shri Balaji Khem Products
7 12.1.2015 4,02,00,000 Sayso Exim Pvt. Ltd.
8 23.1.2015 3,92,50,000 Surana Industries Ltd
9 23.1.2015 3,92,50,000 Vinayaga Infra
10 28.1.2015 4,80,00,000 Surana Industries Ltd
11 28.1.2015 4,80,00,000 Vinayaga Infra
12 29.1.2015 3,50,00,000 Surana Industries Ltd
13 29.1.2015 3,50,00,000 Vinayaga Infra
14 28.9.2015 1,40,00,000 Surana Industries Ltd
15 28.9.2015 1,40,00,000 Natural Coal Pvt Ltd.
16 25.9.2015 2,00,09,000 Surana Industries Ltd
17 25.9.2015 2,00,09,000 Natural Coal Pvt Ltd.
18 23.9.2015 3,40,00,000 Surana Industries Ltd
19 23.9.2015 3,20,00,000 Natural Coal Pvt Ltd.
20 13.10.2015 5,12,00,000 Surana Corporation
26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022
Sl. Date of Debit amount Credit amount Particulars
No. transaction
21 13.10.2015 2,15,40,000 Surana Corporation
22 13.10.2015 2,50,10,000 Surana Corporation
23 12.10.2015 1,20,00,000 Surana Corporation
24 12.10.2015 1,20,00,000 Sayso Exim Pvt. Ltd.
25 23.2.2016 1,31,55,500 Vinayaga Infra
26 23.2.2016 1,31,58,000 Surana Industries Ltd
18. Such being the triangular relationship among the parties insofar as the financial transactions are concerned, it is also seen that many witnesses have spoken about the petitioner acting as dummy of the main accused Shri Dinesh Chand Surana. The investigation so far done by the respondent, prima facie, leads to an inference that it is a classic case of money laundering by round tripping of money. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondent that even after commission of the scheduled offence and generatioin of proceeds of crime, different persons could join the main accused either as abettors or conspirators for committing the offence of money laundering by helping him in laundering the proceeds of crime and such persons might not have involved in the original criminal activity that had resulted in the generation of "proceeds of crime" and just because they 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 were not prosecuted for the predicate offence, their prosecution for money laundering cannot be said to be illegal, appears to be a valid one in the light of the observation made by the Full Bench in Madanlal Choudhary and others vs. Union of India and others (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 itself in para 271, which runs as under:-
"271. As mentioned earlier, the rudimentary understanding of ‘money-laundering’ is that there are three generally accepted stages to money-laundering, they are:
(a) Placement : which is to move the funds from direct association of the crime.
(b) Layering : which is disguising the trail to foil pursuit.
(c) Integration : which is making the money available to the criminal from what seem to be legitimate sources."
19. No doubt "bail is a rule and jail is an exception" and it has been time and again held by various courts that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law. But, at the same time, the courts must strike a balance between the interest of the society in general and the right of an accused to personal liberty. It is 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 relevant to note that in Masroor vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2009) 14 SCC 286, it has been held as under:-
"15. There is no denying the fact that the liberty of an individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by the courts. Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be absolute in every situation. The valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general has to be balanced. Liberty of a person accused of an offence would depend upon the exigencies of the case. It is possible that in a given situation, the collective interest of the community may outweigh the right of personal liberty of the individual concerned."
20. In the case on hand, the petitioner, claiming to be an uneducated or a little educated person, is said to have been deployed to act as Director in various Companies for several years by the main accused, which itself shows the understanding and relationship between them and the mens rea of the petitioner in abetting the offence of the main accused. Therefore, this court cannot brush aside the objection of the respondent that in the event 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 of the petitioner's coming out on bail at this stage, there is every possibility of his continuance in abetting the offence of the main accused in tampering with the evidence and interfering with the further investigation claiming that he does not have the so-called mens rea, by feigning ignorance as if he was a mere puppet at the hands of the main accused and thereby, this court is of the view that the petitioner has not complied with the second condition laid down under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for grant of bail.
21. Considering the totality of the circumstances, this court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
01.12.2022 ssk Index: Yes.
To
1. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, 30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 Department of Revenue, Chennai Zonal Office-I, 2nd & 3rd Floor, 84, Murugesa Naicker Complex, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006.
2. The Special Public Prosecutor (ED cases), High Court of Madras.
31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA., J.
ssk.
P.D. ORDER IN Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022 Delivered on 01.12.2022 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis