GAYATRI PRASAD PRAJAPATI Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Malay Prasad, Ms. Saloni Mathur, Ms. Tanya Makkar, Sri Piyush Kumar Shukla and Sri. Kaustubh Singh Advocates for the applicant and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, the learned counsel representing the respondent - Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as 'E.D.').

(2.) By means of the instant application filed under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant has challenged validity of the order dtd. 22/12/2022 passed by the Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Lucknow in Sessions Case No. 1220/2021, rejecting the application for discharge filed by the applicant. The applicant has also assailed another order passed in the aforesaid case on the same date framing charge of commission of offence under Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA') against the applicant.

(3.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 26/11/2020, an Inspector in the U. P. Vigilance Establishment filed a First Information Report (F.I.R.) No. 0003 of 2020 under Ss. 13 (2) and 13 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station Lucknow Sector, Vigilance Establishment, against the applicant stating that by means of a Government order dtd. 8/6/2018, U. P. Vigilance Establishment was directed to conduct an open enquiry against the applicant, who was the then Minister for Mining in U. P. Government. It was found in enquiry that while working as a public servant, the applicant had earned ?49,93,149/- from his known and valid sources of income, but he spent ?3,48,21,760/- on acquisition of properties and maintenance during the same period. Thus the applicant spent ?2,98,28,511/- in excess of his known income, which is disproportionate to his income from the known and valid sources. The applicant could not give any satisfactory reply regarding disproportionate expenditure and acquisition of properties. Besides this, there was prima facie evidence that the applicant had acquired benami properties also. The F.I.R. states that the aforesaid acts of the applicant amount to commission of offence under Sec. 13 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.