BHANU PRATAP SHAHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) This Criminal Revision petition has been filed against the order dtd. 13/3/2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No.253 of 2018 arising out of ECIR/02/Pat/09/AD(D) by which the learned Special Judge, CBI has rejected the petition for discharge of the petitioner and it transpires from the record that subsequently the charges for the offences punishable under sec. 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 have been framed inter alia against the petitioner and his private secretary namely Uma Shankar Malviya along with Ajay Singh, Prashant Kumar Singh, Santoshi Devi during the check period from March 2005 to July, 2009; while the petitioner was a Member of Legislative Assembly and Minister of Health and Labour, Government of Jharkhand, having directly or indirectly indulged in process and activities in connection with proceeds of crime of the schedule offence and knowingly have obtained/acquired huge properties and made bank transactions in the Jharkhand and other states by involving in process and activities connected with the proceeds of the crime of the schedule offences of the said offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 valued Rs.7,97,96,888.00, and the petitioner and others have projected the said properties as untainted properties. It further transpires that after framing the charge, the six witnesses have been examined by the prosecution during the trial and except P.W.3 rest of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.

(3.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly on 13/3/2005 and while working as public servant as Member of Legislative Assembly and as Minister of Health and Labour, Government of Jharkhand during the check period of 13/3/2005 to 24/7/2009 acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs.6,99,95,964.00, by abusing his official position and the disproportionate assets so acquired has been invested by the petitioner and the co-accused person in the form of movable/immovable assets