Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement submits that challenge in this petition is to quash the said ECIR case which is an internal document of the Directorate of Enforcement which might have been communicated to the Court and that has got no consequence. So far as the prayer for quashing is concerned, that is misconceived one and the same is internal document, that has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) in paragraph 461 of that judgment. He further submits that the complaint has already been filed and the learned court has already taken the cognizance. According to him, the petitioner has although brought those documents by way of filing the said I.A., but those documents are not under challenge. He draws attention of the Court to the internal page 13 of the complaint annexed with the said I.A. and submits that only mens rea behind this was to check and hamper the ongoing PIL for his gain and for this, he withdrew Rs.60 Lakhs from his bank account out of which Rs.50 Lakhs was used to trap the accused. The said amount of Rs.60 Lakhs was withdrawn from IDFC First Bank Account, which is held in the name of M/s Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. and an amount of Rs.56 Lakhs have been transferred into this account from one of the account of the company of the accused person namely Amit Kumar Agarwal registered with ROC Jharkhand. The said amount was in fact proceeds of crime which was generated by Amit Kumar Agarwal and later acquired by Rajeev Kumar. By way of inviting attention of the Court to internal page 38 of the complaint, he submits that it has come in the investigation that the name of Amit Kumar Agarwal cropped in the investigation of illegal mining case under reference No.ECIR04/2022 (in ECIR RNZO/03/2022 dated 08.03.2022) having POC of proceeds of crime of more than Rs.1000 Crore. The statement of Ravi Kumar Kejriwal, who was earlier treasurer of JMM, was recorded under Section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, in which, he stated that while working as treasurer, JMM, one day he was present in the office of the Chief Minister, when the CM directed Pankaj Mishra to directly hand over the funds coming from Santhal Parganas from stone mining and sand mining business to Prem Prakash. It was also discussed that Prem Prakash will hand over the funds to Amit Kumar Agarwal. He also stated that Prem Prakash is very close to Hemant Soren and Amit Kumar Agarwal. He also stated that Smt. Pooja Singhal was given the additional charge of Mining Secretary, Jharkhand due to her proximity with Amit Kumar Agarwal. He further stated that Prem Prakash is very close to Hemant Soren and Pintu, and has developed good relation with them in last couple of years. Earlier he used to supply eggs in Mid-Day meal program but in last couple of years, he has become a power broker in Jharkhand and a fund manager for bureaucrats and politicians. He further submits that this petitioner was produced before the learned court and he was remanded to judicial custody on 08.10.2022 and on that day, judicial order has been passed by the learned court in which the petitioner has not complained anything. Moreover, the said order of remand is not under challenge. He also submits that I.A. No.10240 of 2022 filed on behalf of the petitioner for interim bail is misconceived one. There are statutory provisions of release on bail and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurabh Kumar through his father v. Jailor, Koneila Jail and another; [(2014) 13 SCC 436] .

21. In light of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that admittedly only the ECIR is under challenge in this petition, which is internal document of the ED and that might have been communicated to the Court and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court about internal document of the ECIR in paragraph 461 of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra). Paragraph 461 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:

"461. It is true that the ED Manual may be an internal document for departmental use and in the nature of set of administrative orders. It is equally true that the accused or for that matter common public may not be entitled to have access to such administrative instructions being highly confidential and dealing with complex issues concerning mode and manner of investigation, for internal guidance of officers of ED. It is also correct to say that there is no such requirement under the 2002 Act or for that matter, that there is nothing like investigation of a crime of money-laundering as per the scheme of 2002 Act. The investigation, however, is to track the property being proceeds of crime and to attach the same for being dealt with under the 2002 Act. Stricto sensu, it is in the nature of an inquiry in respect of civil action of attachment. Nevertheless, since the inquiry in due course ends in identifying the offender who is involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and then to prosecute him, it is possible for the department to outline the situations in which that course could be adopted in reference to specific provisions of 2002 Act or the Rules framed thereunder; and in which event, what are the options available to such person before the Authority or the Special Court, as the case may be. Such document may come handy and disseminate information to all concerned. At least the feasibility of placing such document on the official website of ED may be explored."