Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.2 Pursuant to above order, FIR No. RC.BD-1/ 2014/ E/ 0004/ BS &FC, New Delhi dated 19.02.2014 was registered against M/s PACL Ltd. and PGF Ltd. and its directors under Sections 409, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. Raids were conducted in February 2014 in the offices of M/s PACL Ltd., in which CBI seized original sale/title deeds of the properties belonging to M/s PACL Ltd. and its group/associate companies, situated all over India. A list of properties was sent by the CBI to Government of Punjab, so as to direct the Registrars concerned in the State 2 of 19 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055229 CRM-M-4638-2024 2024:PHHC: 055229 CRM-M-6208-2024 2024:PHHC: 055231 CRM-M-6382-2024 2024:PHHC: 055232 to obtain prior approval of the Sub Registrar or the Deputy Commissioners before registering any sale deed, GPA, lease deed and conveyance deed etc. pertaining to the properties belonging to M/s PACL Ltd. Subsequently, Government of Punjab also issued a letter dated 30.06.2015 to all the Deputy Commissioners in this regard.

3.3 Further, in CA No.13301 of 2015, Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 02.02.2016 (Annexure R2), constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of former Chief Justice of India, Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha, so as to dispose of the properties and the lands of M/s PACL Ltd. to return the money of the investors. Said committee was asked to collect relevant record including the title deeds from the CBI. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide it's another order dated 25.07.2016 stayed the sale/transfer/alienation of all the properties of the aforesaid companies. This committee cautioned the public by way of a public notice against buying/dealing any such properties, as only Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha Committee (in the matter of PACL Ltd.) was authorized to sell the properties of PACL Ltd. or the properties, wherein PACL Ltd. or any of its associates/subsidiaries have any interest/rights, directly or indirectly. State Case (as per status report of the respondents): 4.1 Pradeep Singh [petitioner in CRM-M-6382 of 2024] son of Mukund Lal of District Patiala, made a complaint to DGP, Punjab, alleging that they had been cheated by the persons, who were disposing of the properties belonging to M/s PACL Ltd. fraudulently by preparing forged and fabricated documents in violation of the order dated 25.07.2016 of Hon'ble Supreme Court (Annexure R3).

7.6 Ld. counsel contends further that as far as remaining offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are concerned, these are punishable to maximum sentence of 7 years and that investigating agency is required to adhere to the law enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2014 (8) SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 AIR (Supreme Court) 3386, as per which it is imperative to abide by Sections 41 & 41A CrPC, which has not been done in this case. 7.7 Ld. counsel contends that though offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are not attracted, but at best the entire case propounded by the Investigating Agency is that certain properties have been sold by the petitioner in violation of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even 10 of 19 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055229 CRM-M-4638-2024 2024:PHHC: 055229 CRM-M-6208-2024 2024:PHHC: 055231 CRM-M-6382-2024 2024:PHHC: 055232 though the said allegations are false, but at the best, this will constitute offence under the Contempt of Courts Act, but in no way would lead to initiation of the criminal proceeding by way of present FIR. Ld. counsel contends further that petitioner had no direct concern with the affairs of PACL ltd.; and that petitioner is a lady and a senior citizen of 68 years of age, suffering from various ailments. She is in custody for the last more than 7 months. Trial is likely to take long time to conclude and so, in all these circumstances, she be granted regular bail. Contention on behalf of Prabhjot Singh 8.1 It is contended on behalf of petitioner Prabhjot Singh that as per the final report submitted by the Investigating Agency, the land in question was not originally owned by M/s PACL group or any of its subsidiary companies. Rather, property was originally owned by M/s Omax India Pvt. Ltd., who way-back in 2011-12 sold the property to 3 different companies i.e. M/s Stone Water Pvt. Ltd., M/s Inspire Infraestates Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Caste Infraestates Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner had no nexus or concern with any of these companies. As per record, these companies in December 2014 sold certain part of their land to M/s Waterfield Estate Pvt. Ltd., with which also petitioner has no concern or nexus.

9.3 Ld. counsel contends that order of Hon'ble Supreme Court was passed on 25.07.2016; that revenue authorities were keeping a strict vigil after this date on the lands purchased from the funds of investors by the accused-company M/s PACL ltd; that there is no allegation that petitioner has indulged in sale purchase of the tainted land; that petitioner and his associates developed residential colonies after purchasing the land in 2018 and after being issued license in due course of law; that at no stage colonies developed by the petitioner and his associates have been found to be developed on the lands purchased out of the investors' funds by M/s PACL ltd. or its associate companies; that wrong entry in revenue record was made to the effect that land purchased by M/s Waterfield Estates Pvt. Ltd. belonged to M/s PACL Pvt. Ltd. and that on inquiry by the SDM Dera Bassi vide report No.523 dated 21.07.2017, it was found that a wrong revenue entry had been made in this regard, as the company registering the sale deed was not in the list of Pearl Group of Companies and thereafter, District Revenue Officer, SAS Nagar, vide his letter dated 02.02.2018, directed SDM, SAS Nagar to delete the entry dated 21.07.2017. Ld. 13 of 19 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055229 CRM-M-4638-2024 2024:PHHC: 055229 CRM-M-6208-2024 2024:PHHC: 055231 CRM-M-6382-2024 2024:PHHC: 055232 counsel also contends that falsification of the status report dated 26.07.2023, as was filed before this Court in CWP-380-2023, is proved from the fact that the companies listed to be attached in the SEBI report/recovery certificate dated 07.02.2023 do not find mention in the status report dated 26.07.2023.