Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. As per the case of ED, applicant along with JHM Group arranged to deposit Rs.12.8 Crores in cash, in the joint bank account of Badal Krishna Sanyal and Tania Sanyal through his employee Manoj Sana. This money was allegedly given as bribe to Satish Kumar for providing protection and patronage in the predicate offence of cattle smuggling. It is also alleged that applicant through his staff gave Rs.6.1 Crores to Vinay Mishra and Vikas Mishra as bribe for providing ease in cattle smuggling as Vinay Mishra was allegedly closely associated with the political regime of West Bengal. It is also alleged that applicant along with his nephews and other hawala operators laundered illegal PoC amounting to Rs.6.1 Crores generated through cattle smuggling by way of receiving remittance from Dubai on account of export of fabric. This amount was allegedly received in the account of HMPL and thereafter routed through various bank accounts to HIPL and was used to purchase the CR Park Property. Therefore, allegedly, PoC were generated in 3 different ways. With respect to Rs.12.8 Crores deposited in the joint bank account of Badal Krishna Sanyal and Tania Sanyal and Rs.6.1 Crores allegedly given to Vinay and Vikas Mishra as bribe, ED heavily relies on the handwritten diary of Manoj Sana seized by CBI in the predicate offence. However, both ED and CBI have failed to prove any relation between applicant and Manoj Sana. The latter is not an employee of the applicant nor the applicant ever instructed Manoj Sana to enter into any transactions or acts alleged. ED has neither examined Manoj Sana to prove the contents of the diary nor produced any expert opinion to show that the entries are in the handwriting of Manoj Sana, so as to conclude that the diary belongs to him. The handwritten diary is thus not admissible in evidence, in the absence of corroborative evidence. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla and Others, (1998) 3 SCC 410 and judgment of this Court in L.K. Advani v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 382, to contend that diary entries cannot be relied on at this stage. Manoj Sana is neither an accused nor witness in the criminal prosecution under PMLA and the predicate offence. It is only in the second supplementary charge sheet filed by the CBI that he has been named as a witness. Babla Sana, brother of Manoj Sana, categorically stated that he has not met the applicant and was not aware whether Manoj Sana worked for the applicant. In a statement before CBI, Cochin, Manoj Sana stated that he was a property dealer by profession.