Raj Rani Vs Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement

1. Present appeals are filed against the impugned order dated 19.01.2016 in OC No.524/2015, passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide which Provisional Attachment Order No.3/2015 dated 15.09.2015 was confirmed. The properties of appellants confirmed for attachment are detailed as under:-

2. As per para 3 of the impugned order, the facts of the case are that the Vigilance Bureau, Bhatinda, Punjab registered FIRs against Shri Joginder Singh, XEN, PWD Mansa; Shri Sarabjit Singh, JE, PWD (B&R) Appellant Satpal Bansal along with other accused persons is named as accused in the Case FIR No.4/2012, u/s 409/420/467/ 468/471/ 120B of IPC & u/s 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act, 1988, PS Vigilance Bureau, Range Bhatinda. After investigation police filed charge-sheet against the accused persons. As per charge-sheet accused Joginder Singh in connivance with appellant Satpal Bansal (Retd.) prepared forged Letter of Credit for Rs.225 lacs under Letter No.1024/budget dated 14.06.2010 and for Rs.251 lacs under Letter No.11824/budget dated 03.08.2010 and thereby caused loss to the treasury of the Government of Punjab to the tune of Rs.476 Lacs, apart from other allegations mentioned therein.

Appellant Satpal Bansal, along with other accused persons, is charge-sheeted as accused in the Case FIR No.5/2012, u/s 409/420/ 467/468/471/120B of IPC & u/s 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act, 1988, PS Vigilance Bureau, Range Bhatinda. After investigation police filed charge-sheet against the accused persons. As per charge-sheet accused Joginder Singh in connivance with appellant Satpal Bansal (Retd.) prepared forged Letter of Credit No.4214 dated 22.03.2020, No.4260 dated 25.03.2010 & No.7224 dated 22.03.2010 totaling to Rs.465 Lacs and thereby caused loss to the treasury of the Government of Punjab to the tune of Rs.465 Lacs, apart from other allegations mentioned therein.

During enquiry/investigation the present appellants stated that the said amount lying in the accounts are not proceeds of crime in any manner. Smt. Raj Rani stated that- she was employed as JBT in Government Primary School, Sangrur. Sum of Rs.85,000 & Rs.15,000 were deposited in her account by cheque gifted to her by her father Shri Murari Lal and she is not aware about the source of rest of the funds. She does not know as to why the transactions were done from her accounts with M/s A.K. Builders and M/s Sharma Construction Company and her account was managed by her husband. She is not aware about the source of funds for purchasing the plots in Village Kammo, Majra.

On the other hand, Shri Satpal Bansal stated that his son was having an FDR of Rs. 6 lacs in his name out of the funds given to him by his wife, which was later-on used for purchasing plot in village Kammo Majra for Rs. 5,15,000/- in the name of his wife Smt. Raj Rani and also for preparing FDR of Rs. 10,39,000/- in the name of Smt. Raj Rani. His wife Smt. Raj Rani received Rs. 2 Lacs on 04.12.2006 from M/s Sharma Construction Company which was later-on split into M/s AK Builders of Sh. Ashok Kumar and M/s Sharma Construction Company of Sh. R S Attri. Appellant Raj Rani received Rs. 1 lac from M/s A K Builders on 30.04.2007. She received said Rs. 1 lac by two cheques of Rs. 85000/-and 15000/-. Thereafter Rs. 2 lacs and 2.5 lacs were transferred to M/s Goyal Agro Rice Udhyog through cheques on 13.04.2007 and 13.10.2007 from the account of Smt. Raj Rani. Two FDRs of Rs. 3 lacs each made on 07.05.2008 and 09.05.2008 on maturity were utilized to prepare an FDR of Rs. 8 lacs on 08.02.2011 from the account of Smt. Raj Rani. His wife Smt. Raj Rani received Rs. 6,82,426/- from M/s AK Builders on 26.04.2014 in her account with SBI, out of which Rs. 6 lacs were transferred to the account of his son Sh. Naveen Kumar on 12.09.2014. The said amount was used to prepare FDR in the name of his son, which was later-on utilize for purchasing plot. He (Sh. Satpal Bansal) made payment of Rs. 4 lacs out of his pension account on 16.12.2011 and the balance amount was withdrawn from his wife’s account. He admitted that he has not informed his department about the financial transactions undertaken by his wife and daughter with M/s Sharma Construction Company & M/s AK Builders, who did contract work with PWD (B & R) Malerkotla, where he was posted from 1997 to 2007. He failed to explain the various cash deposit in his account at HDFC Bank & PNB Sangrur.

Appellant Sh. Satpal Bansal in his further statement dated 24.08.2015 stated that he purchased plot in village Kammo Majra in the name of his wife Smt. Raj Rani on 20.12.2011 by making cash payment. For this purpose, he has withdrawn Rs. 3 lacs on 15.12.2011 from his account with PNB Sangrur and he does not remember about the rest of the payment source. He does not know about the Rs. 4 lacs transferred from his account with HDFC Bank to the account of his daughter of Anu Bansal. He failed to explain the source of other various huge cash deposits in his accounts and in the accounts of his family members.

Para 45 of the impugned order reflects that after going through the statement of accounts of Sh. Satpal Bansal and his family members it was apparent that funds of Rs. 13,42,500/- in cash were deposited in the Bank Accounts of his wife Smt. Raj Rani and daughter Ms. Anu Bansal and further funds of Rs. 10,24,820/- were credited through cheques and by transfer in the account of Smt. Raj Rani, totaling to Rs. 23,67,320/-were acquired by Sh. Satpal Bansal through unlawful means as his share of proceeds of crime.

After going through all the material on record, Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide impugned order dated 19.01.2016 confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order No.3/2015 dated 15.09.2015. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants have filed the present appeals.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant Sh. Satpal Bansal is not charged for the disproportionate assets from his known sources of income, in absence of any FIR in this regard. The assets attached vide impugned order were acquired out of the funds invested in fixed deposit and he explained the funds and cash deposits belonging to him and his family members and the same is not tainted money in any manner. He explained the cash deposits in the account of appellant Sh. Satpal Bansal and Smt. Raj Rani as under:-

Details of sources of cash deposit in the accounts of Sh. Satpal Bansal 

Details of sources of cash deposit in the accounts of Smt. Raj Rani

Ld. counsel for appellants pointed out the documents to explain the above cash deposits in their respective saving accounts. He further asserted that in view of the above explanation to the cash deposits the same cannot be presumed to be proceeds of crime in any manner and hence the said attachment needs to be set aside in the absence of any proof regarding proceeds of crime. Prayer was accordingly made to allow the present appeals and thereby set aside the impugned order for confirming the provisional attachment order.

4. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for respondent ED submitted that the explanation given by appellants is apparently false and incorrect. He pointed out that as per the allegation in FIRs 04/2012 & 05/2012 appellant Sh. Satpal Bansal in connivance with other co-accused persons prepared forged Letter of Credits and thereby caused loss to the Punjab State Exchequer to the tune of Rs.941 Lacs. He received tainted money from various contractors and deposited the same in his account and in the account of his family members as reflected therein, apart from the other cash transactions which are not on record. During enquiry appellant Satpal Bansal failed to explain the said deposits. The appellant is falsely trying to explain the said cash deposits by corelating the same with the withdrawal of amounts from their accounts on different occasions. He pointed out that there is no reasonable explanation for withdrawing the cash from one account and then depositing the cash in another account, instead of issuing cheque. He further argued that seeing the quantum of fraud committed by the accused persons including appellant Satpal Bansal the attachment of appellants properties is quite justified, as in lieu of proceeds of crime, even if, there is no direct evidence to link the said cash deposits in various saving accounts and payment of cash amount for purchase of immovable property in the name of appellant Smt. Raj Rani. He further pointed out that appellant Sh. Satpal Bansal is facing criminal trial in two charge sheets filed against him for commission of predicate offences for preparing forged letter of credits. He further contended that the attached properties cannot be released at this stage, as the outcome of said criminal trials in police case and compliant case are yet to be concluded. Prayer is accordingly made to dismiss the present appeals being devoid of any merits.

5. After hearing rival contentions and after going through the records we have given our thoughtful consideration to the same. Admittedly, appellant facing criminal trials in two charge sheets pertaining to two FIRs Nos. 4/2012 & 5/2012 PS Vigilance Bureau Bhatinda, at District SAS Nagar (Mohali). As per the charge sheets the appellant Sh. Satpal Bansal in connivance with other co-accused persons by misusing his official position as public servant being working as Superintendent, PWD (B&R) prepared forged Letter of Credits for sum of Rs.941 Lacs and thereby caused loss to the Punjab State Exchequer. Thus, even if it is presumed that appellant is able to prove the frequent cash deposits in his account and in the account of his family members by stretch of any imagination, even then there is justification to attach the properties of the appellants in lieu of proceeds of crime and these properties are quite nominal to the quantum of fraud. The Bank transactions with M/s A.K. Builders and M/s Sharma Construction Co. points towards the direction that he was well connected with the number of contractors and was regularly receiving the cash amounts from them, as share of proceeds of crime. Hence, we are of considered view, that at this stage, there is no ground to release the attached properties.

6. In sequel to above discussion, the present appeals are herebydismissed being devoid of any merits. However, it is made clear that nothing expressed herein will affect the criminal trials in any manner. Copies of this Final Order be sent to both the parties by post.

File be consigned to record room.

Appeals are dismissed.

Pronounced in Open Court.