RAM KRIPAL MEENA Vs. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. bail application is preferred under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dtd. 16/9/2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) and Special Judge CBI Cases No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal Regular Bail Application No.83/2023 (CIS No.241/2023) by which the bail application of the accused petitioner- Ram Kripal Meena was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prima facie no criminal case is made out under Sec. 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the petitioner. He further submits that two FIRs bearing Nos.402/2021 and 298/2021 were registered by Rajasthan Police. First FIR bearing No.402/2021 was registered on 27/9/2021 under Ss. 420 & 120-B of IPC and under Ss. 4 & 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 and second FIR bearing No.298/2021 was registered on 28/9/2021 at Police Station Balghat, District Karauli, Rajasthan under Ss. 302, 365 and 120-B of IPC and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He further submits that as per FIR No.402/2021, the main allegation is against Udaram Bishnoi, who purchased the papers of Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers, 2021 (hereinafter to be referred as 'REET, 2021') for Rs.1.20 Crores and distributed it further. The rajasthan Police filed three charge sheets 222, 222A and 222B. He also submits that the Enforcement Department can initiate the proceeding only for the offences prescribed in Part-A and Part-B of the Schedule. He also submits that the offences pertaining to Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 does not fell in the 'scheduled offence' specified under Part-A and Part-B of the Schedule. He further submits that the offence under Sec. 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 is an independent offence and the investigation so far conducted does not indicate that accused petitioner procured the amount in predicate offence and used or concealed it. He also submits that the main allegation of purchasing the stolen paper was against the accused Udaram Bishnoi and prima facie no case under Sec. 420 of IPC is made out against the present petitioner. The ingredients of Sec. 420 of IPC are entirely missing in the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner under Ss. 420 and 120-B of the IPC and under Ss. 4 & 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. There is no evidence that the accused petitioner fraudulently or dishonestly induced any person or persons with an intention to cause damage or harm and obtained money from them, therefore, in the absence of evidence regarding any inducement to any person, the offence under Sec. 420 of IPC is not made out. Hence, the proceedings under Sec. 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as 'PMLA') are perse illegal. He further submits that in absence of main offence of Sec. 420 of IPC the offence under Sec. 120-B is also not made out. Therefore, prosecuting the accused under Sec. 3/4 of PMLA is illegal. He further submits that SOG of Rajasthan has recovered the money from Sh. Ram Kripal Meena from Kahnaiya Lal Sharma, Bhanwar Singh Shekhawat, Bhagwan Shay Bairwa and Shankar Lal in tune to Rs.36,00,000.00. He further submits that Sanjay Mama, Sansuia Nagar, Varun Tiwari and Ramavtar Meena do not corroborate the prosecution story. Varun Tiwar and Sanjay Mama filed a revision petition before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur against the order dtd. 20/4/2023 whereby the application of Sanjay Mama for handing over of Rs.40,00,000.00 was dismissed. Similarly, Varun Tiwari has also preferred revision petition against the order dtd. 10/2/2023 passed by ACJM, Gangapur, whereby the application for returning the amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 and Rs.15,00,000.00 on supurdaginama was dismissed. The application filed by the Varun Tiwari and Sanjay Mama shows that recovery of amount of Rs.65,00,000.00 was wrongfully shown, therefore, that amount cannot be taken into consideration as proceeds of crime. Similarly, statements of Sansuia & Ramavtar were also not recorded, therefore, the alleged recovery from them also does not fall within the ambit of proceeds of crime.

(3.) He also argues that as per the proviso appended under Sec. 45(1) of the PMLA, the accused is entitled to be released on bail as the amount recovered alleged to be proceeds of crime, is less than one crore rupees.