RAM BINOD PRASAD SINHA V. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

A.B.A./8303/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Ram Binod Prasad Sinha, a former Junior Engineer at Zila Parishad, Khunti, who sought anticipatory bail in connection with allegations of embezzlement and money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner was accused of diverting government project funds into personal accounts and using these funds for personal gains, including purchasing properties and vehicles. The Directorate of Enforcement opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the risk of evidence tampering. The court's decision was influenced by the gravity of the charges and the petitioner's previous non-cooperation with the investigation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724830 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PRASHANT VIDYARTHI
• Assessee Lawyers: PANDEY NEERAJ RAI
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Embezzlement; Financial Intelligence Unit; Government funds; Money laundering; Suspicious transaction report
• Section: 4

Judgement Text

" A.B.A. No.8303 of 2019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 8303 of 2019 ------ Ram Binod Prasad Sinha … Petitioner Versus Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, P.P. Compound, Kaushalya Chambers- II, Ranchi Sub Zonal Office, P.O. –G.P.O., P.S. –Hindpidhi, District –Ranchi. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, Advocate ------ Order No.04 Dated- 04.02.2020 Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Case No. ECIR 03/2018 (arising out of ECIR No. ECIR/14/PAT/2012 dated 18.05.2012) registered under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Heard the parties. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner while posted as Junior Engineer in Zila Parishad, Khunti in the State of Jharkhand embezzled huge amount of funds allocated to him for completion of various project works and in this respect 16 different cases have been lodged against him, the details of which has been mentioned in paragraph no.2.4 of the complaint which are the schedule offences for the offences committed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It is further alleged that a Suspicious Transaction Report vide S.T.R. No. 1000012098 was also issued by Financial Intelligence Unit of Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India to A.B.A. No.8303 of 2019 2 Directorate of Enforcement in January, 2010 observing high value cash transaction in two accounts of Shri Ram Binod Prasad Sinha. C.I.F. numbers of both the accounts were different as the accounts were opened in different names by a slight tweaking in his names viz. (i) Shri Ram Binod Prasad Sinha and (ii) Shri Ram Binod Sinha, withdrawal of Rs. 50 Lakh in cash from the account no. 20033525873 and deposit of Rs.40 Lakh cash in account no. 30323746710 on 20.10.2009 was noticed by FIU, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India. It is further alleged that various inspection teams were constituted by the Zila Parishad, Khunti and District Magistrate, Khunti, Jharkhand to assess the value of different works executed by the petitioner during his tenure as Junior Engineer in Zila Parashad, Khunti, Jharkhand. Consequent upon the audit of the work executed by the petitioner at different locations, a combined embezzlement of Rs.18 crores was noticed. It is further alleged that though the petitioner was suspended by Rural Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand from 11.09.2006 till 17.05.2010 but in-spite of his suspension, he continued working for the department and during the course of his suspension, though he only got subsistence allowance to the tune of Rs.2,28,690/- but the scrutiny of account of the petitioner shows that he has several high value transactions and total debit and credit in his bank accounts are much more than his known source of income. It is further alleged that the petitioner had opened several bank accounts through which he was diverting funds received by him against different government project works. He was operating personal saving account no. 491510110000809 and account no. 49151010000615 in Bank of India, Khunti Branch. In both the accounts he had received several project related funds which he subsequently diverted to different personal accounts maintained by him and his family members. In both the accounts several high value transactions are noticed and on being asked, to classify the transactions of both these accounts on the basis of personal transaction and official transaction, the petitioner failed to classify the transaction on the basis of personal transaction and A.B.A. No.8303 of 2019 3 official transaction. It is further alleged that on scrutiny of account no. 491510110000615 maintained by the petitioner at Bank of India, Khunti Branch, it is noticed that he had transferred an amount of Rs.40 Lakh from this account bearing no. 491510110000615 to the account of his wife Smt. Sheela Kumari with the Bank of India, Khunti Branch bearing Account no. 49151010003449 on 28.10.2009. Further the petitioner also transferred an amount of Rs.35 Lakh on 26.10.2009 from his account with Bank of India, Khunti Branch bearing account no. 491510110000800 to his daughter Smt. Puja Sinha in her Account with Bank of India, Khunti Branch bearing account no. 495100110002120. On being asked about the sources of these funds in his bank accounts, the petitioner stated in his statement dated 17.11.2017, that he took a loan from M/s Chandra Construction, to the tune of rupees one crore and further stated that he had returned the said entire loan amount to M/s Chandra Construction in due course but he could not say the date and mode of payment to the said M/s Chandra Construction and though the petitioner stated that Shri Kameshwar Prasad Yadav, the proprietor of M/s Chandra construction was one of his tenants and he knew nothing more about him thus giving the bizarre impression that in-spite of giving a huge loan to the tune of Rs.1.32 crore neither M/s Chandra Construction nor the petitioner were in touch with each other, the petitioner however mentioned that he is not having any direct relationship with the said M/s Chandra Construction and though he has provided him the loan. In his statement dated 22.02.2018 the petitioner stated that M/s Chandra Construction gave Rs.1.40 crore to him as loan. It is further alleged that the petitioner repeatedly changed his statement regarding the loan and the nature of repayment of the said loan to M/s Chandra Construction. It is further alleged that the statement of Shri Kameshwar Prasad Yadav, son of Late Hira Prasad Yadav, and partner of M/s. Chandra Construction was recorded on 25.03.2018 and 30.11.2018 and in his statement dated 25.03.2018, he stated that he came to know the petitioner in the year 2009, when he got tender for construction of two bridges from Khunti Zila Parishad A.B.A. No.8303 of 2019 4 where the petitioner was his Junior Engineer for the said project and the said Kameshwar Prasad Yadav categorically denied having stayed at the residence of the petitioner as tenant and further stated that he had just visited his house once. Smt. Sheela Kumari, the wife of the petitioner in her statement dated 07.12.2017 recorded under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, submitted that she had never seen Shri Kameshwar Yadav and that, she did not know any person with this name and she never had any tenant with name either Shri Kameshwar Yadav or M/s Chandra Construction. Further the said Kameshwar Yadav in his statement dated 25.03.2018 has categorically denied having given any loan to the petitioner and on being asked about the loan to the tune of Rs.1.40 crore given by him to the petitioner, he categorically denied giving any loan to the petitioner and stated that the petitioner had supplied him bridge construction materials such as iron rods, bricks, sand, cements etc. and in return, he paid the price of these materials to the petitioner i.e. in total he has paid Rs.1.44 crores in the name of the petitioner, his wife namely Smt. Sheela Kumari and his daughter namely Smt. Puja Sinha. Shri Kameshwar Yadav also submitted his stock register of the said period which reveals that the building materials were received from the petitioner. Shri Kameshwar Prasad is a person of limited means and has also showed his financial inability to give such huge amount as loan and stated that he never had such finance available to give as loan and the admission of the petitioner that he was not having any personal or professional relationship shows that the story of loan taken from M/s Chandra Construction is nothing but an afterthought to hide layering of money done by the petitioner to launder the ill-gotten money during his tenure as Junior Engineer in Khunti District in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner supplied bridge construction materials such as iron rods, sand, cement etc. to M/s Chandra Construction and received money from M/s Chandra Construction in his account and in the accounts of his wife and daughter. The petitioner thus, got a total amount of Rs.1.32 crores transferred to the accounts of his wife and A.B.A. No.8303 of 2019 5 daughter. Further, from the accounts of his wife and daughter, the petitioner got the said money transferred to the accounts of M/s Anurachal Pradesh Mineral Development and Trading Corporation with a purpose, not only to make profit in trade in coal but also to launder his ill-gotten money and project the final outcome as untainted money. The petitioner transferred Rs.35 Lakh from Bank of India Account of her wife Smt. Sheela Kumari, Rs.21 Lakh from Bank of India Account of his daughter Smt. Puja Sinha and Rs.19 Lakh from his account with the United Bank of India to the account of M/s Arunachal Pradesh Mineral Development and Trading Corporation ( APMDTC) A total of Rs.75 Lakh was invested by the petitioner in M/s APMDTC from where he was supposed to get monthly supply of 40,000 tons of ‘B’ grade coal, which he planned to sell in open market at 50% profit but due to his surrender to Jharkhand Police, and subsequent Jail term of four years he lost track of the investment. It is further alleged that the wife of the petitioner, namely Smt. Sheela Kumari has categorically denied having any knowledge of her bank account with Bank of India, Khunti. She has further claimed that her signature in the account opening form was taken by fraud or by making a forged signature and she does not have any knowledge about either of the accounts with the Bank of India, Khunti Branch or about its transactions. Smt. Sheela Kumari has also stated in her statement that she had no idea about the company named M/s Arunachal Pradesh Mineral Development and Trading Corporation. The petitioner confessed that the accounts of his wife Smt. Sheela Kumari and his daughter Smt. Puja Sinha were opened and operated by him. Thus the petitioner used the accounts of his wife and daughter and also of M/s Chandra Construction to launder the ill-gotten money he had generated at Khunti in the capacity of a Junior Engineer. The petitioner in his statement dated 22.02.2018, recorded under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has stated that he purchased a total of seven commercial vehicles costing around Rs.68.93 Lakh, partly from the loan taken from M/s A.B.A. No.8303 of 2019 6 Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited and partly from the loan which were taken from M/s Chandra Construction by routing the same through his accounts with Bank of India, Khunti Branch. M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vide its letter dated 08.12.2017 had informed that the total loan provided by them against four commercial vehicles was Rs.25,40,000/-. However, out of four loans, two loans amounting to Rs.12,70,000/- have already been settled and the remaining two loans amounting to Rs.12,70,000/- against two vehicles is pending. The petitioner did not get registered three of the vehicles with any District Transport Office and in-spite of being a government servant, never gave financial information to his department regarding purchase of commercial vehicles in his name and through investment in the commercial vehicles, planned to launder his ill-gotten money in the capacity of Junior Engineer and he repaid the two loans in a very short span of time from the source of his tainted money and projected them as income from the said commercial vehicles and thus laundered and projected his ill-gotten money as clean money. It is further alleged that the petitioner purchased 8.35 acres of land at Khunti, Jharkhand and stated that he has taken loan for that purpose from M/s Chandra Construction, keeping in view the fact the petitioner was not getting salary from the Government of Jharkhand since 2000. The petitioner purchased one flat at Sector - 34, Noida, in Gautam Budh Nagar in the state of Uttar Pradesh and though he claimed that he booked the said flat from the amount arranged from M/s Chandra Construction by way of a loan and the cost of the said flat purchased in the name of his son was Rs.57 Lakhs, out of which around Rs.16 Lakhs was paid by the petitioner by way of getting cancellation refund of his two other flats and by way of diverting his fund and the same was later transferred to the petitioner in February, 2018 at the value of Rs.49,00,000/- and the same is under possession of the petitioner and these acts on the part of the petitioner was done to project his ill-gotten money generated in the capacity of Junior Engineer, as untainted investment. The petitioner also purchased a house at A.B.A. No.8303 of 2019 7 Circuit House, Jail More, Ranchi and got registered the same in the name of his wife in the year 2006. The purchase value of the land at the time of purchase was Rs.3,19,000/- and the cost of the house already constructed on the said land was Rs.1,06,000/- but the Technical Valuation Cell, Cabinet Secretariat & Vigilance Department, Government of Jharkhand has re-assessed the value of construction done on the said property after its purchase on 25.02.2006 wherein the value of the said construction was assessed at Rs.86,59,500/-. Smt. Sheela Kumari, the wife of the petitioner was not having any valid source of income declared in her income tax return during that period, the finance to pursue further construction on the said property was another attempt of the petitioner to launder and project his ill-gotten tainted money as an untainted investment. In his statement dated 22.02.2018, the petitioner has stated that he had three fixed deposits with Bank of India, Khunti Branch worth Rs.12 Lakh, Rs.6 Lakh & Rs.5 Lakh respectively and the said fixed deposits were made during the check period and the funds for the same were transferred from the accounts in which the petitioner was diverting the project related funds of Government of Jharkhand as the petitioner was not getting salary from Government since 2000 and he has no other known source of income. The said fixed deposits were made by the diverted amounts from the government funds was also an attempt of the petitioner to launder and project his ill-gotten tainted money as an untainted investment. Though the petitioner claimed that his wife was receiving monthly rental income of Rs.24,000/- per month from the house at Circular Road, Jail More, Ranchi and his annual agricultural income of Rs.1,20,000/- and his wife also used to earn Rs.50,000/- by taking personal tuition for students of primary and middle classes but these sources of income were not declared in Income Tax Returns filed by her in the respective periods and the wife of the petitioner in her statement dated 07.12.2012 has stated home tuition as her only income and that too was so less that she never bothered to reflect the rental income in her Income Tax Returns. A.B.A. No.8303 of 2019 8 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are false and he continued to render his services to the Government of Jharkhand in-spite of his suspension. It is further submitted that so far as the allegation of embezzlement of the Government money of about 18 crores is concerned, the Enquiry Committee has submitted absolutely false report with the direction of high ranking officers. It is next submitted that 60% of the alleged money has been paid to the labourers of the construction work by cash payment and 40% payment was made to the suppliers through banking system. It is then submitted that the Investigating Officer has suppressed the material facts regarding the loan of Rs.1.40 crores. It is next submitted that the statement made on behalf of the M/s Chandra Construction is false. It is further submitted that no offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is made out. It is next submitted that the proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. which was issued against the petitioner has since been set aside by a coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner has been granted bail in all the 16 cases instituted against him and the petitioner was in custody from 23.2.2011 to 05.11.2015 and from 22.02.2018 to 11.09.2018 in connection with 16 embezzlement cases. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that as there is serious allegation against the petitioner of laundering huge amount of money of several crores and there is chance of the petitioner of tampering with the evidence, if released on bail and as he is not cooperating with the investigation of the case as is evident from the necessity by issuing the proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered A.B.A. No.8303 of 2019 9 view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) AFR-Sonu- "