Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is the submission of the learned SPP for the respondent the facts would disclose the petitioner was involved in dealing with the proceeds of crime and in transferring of funds of M/s.PACL through various companies and making transactions of purchasing of properties etc. in the manner stated herein below.

4. It is stated M/s.PACL has transferred Rs.101 crores to Borker Rao's company; Rs.2285 crores to Prateek Group of Companies and Rs.110 crores to 25 companies which then gave the said amount to M/s.Systematix Venture Capital Trust (SVCT). It is the case of the respondent out of Rs.101 crores, the Borker Rao's Company transferred Rs.26 crores to M/s.DDPL and M/s.Unicorn; Prateek Group transferred Rs.94 crores to them and the 25 companies of associated companies of M/s.PACL transferred Rs.110 crores to M/s. DDPL and M/s.Unicorn. It is argued even though the petitioner allegedly joined the group in the year 2012 and left them in the year 2016 but during this entire period he handled these proceeds of crime and transfers were made at his instance and SVCT sold its shares in M/s.DDPL and M/s.Unicorn to a company named M/s.Trinity, owned by brother in law of this applicant, though M/s.Trinity had no money and it was plying from its registered office at a residence.

"8. The above extract indicates that the Committee has found that PACL had transferred Rs 110.95 crores to five companies, which in turn had transferred the funds to twenty five entities, who were associates of PACL. This amount was invested in Scheme I of Systematix, which in turn had invested it in the equity shares and OFCDs of DDPL and Unicorn, alleged to be associates of PACL. Of the above amount of Rs 110.95 crores, the Committee has, thus far, recovered Rs 42.24 crores from Systematix and recovery proceedings have been initiated for recovering an amount of Rs 19.04 crores, which was repaid by Systematix to twenty five associate companies of PACL. SEBI initiated action for the recovery of the remaining amount of Rs 49.67 crores in order to implement the directions issued by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution on 25 July 2016 and 4 August 2017."

18. It is alleged several intermediary companies viz. associated companies of Pearl Group (PACL) and/ or its direct subsidiary and indirect subsidiary companies were never made an accused in the present case. Admittedly, on 28.11.2003 the Rajasthan High Court had taken a view PACL was not operating a corrective investment scheme and on 26.02.2013 the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with similar allegation had refused a blanket order on receipts of PACL. Though it set aside the Rajasthan High Court's judgment but did not put any restraint upon to PACL to receive money though SEBI was asked to look into the transactions. Thus, uptil 2013 there was no restriction for PACL to receive investment. On 12.03.2013 the Supreme Court while dealing with one of the sister company of PACL had directed CBI investigation. It was only on 22.08.2014 PACL was declared as a corrective investment scheme by SEBI.

34. Considering the submission of the petitioner, viz. the petitioner's claim he did not have knowledge if the funds of M/s.PACL were tainted in any manner on account of an order dated 28.11.2003 of Rajasthan High Court in PACL India Ltd. vs. Union of India as also an order dated 26.02.2013 in SEBI vs. PACL India Ltd. in CA 6753-54/2004 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to classify M/s.PACL as CIS but had only directed the SEBI on 22.08.2014 to look into its affairs and that there was no embargo for 18 years upon M/s.PACL on its operation. Admittedly the petitioner was a downstream investor of funds hence his submission he did not knowingly became a party to money laundering cannot be brushed aside lightly. Even otherwise he allegedly was a nominee non-executive director since 11.09.2012 in M/s.DDPL and M/s.Unicorn and prior to 11.09.2012 had nothing to do with these companies; further substantial amount received in the companies of petitioner was returned in the manner alleged above and even Gurmeet Singh's statement would show the petitioner represented the 25 companies were not associated with M/s.PACL. What weigh the statements under Section 50 of PMLA would carry at the end of trial cannot be tested at the stage of bail, more importantly when the intermediary companies were never made an accused in the present ECIR. The ultimate effect of their non-inclusion would be seen at the conclusion of trial. Further considering the order dated 03.09.2020 wherein all remaining co-accused in this ECIR were admitted to bail, this Court has every reason to say the petitioner has passed the test of broad probabilities. Admittedly twin conditions of Section 45 (supra) does not put an absolute restraint on grant of bail or require a positive finding qua guilt.