POOJA SINGHAL Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of the cognizance order dtd. 19/7/2022 (Annexure-2) qua the petitioner, passed by Shri Prabhat Kumar Sharma, learned Special Judge, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Ranchi in connection with ECIR Case No. 03 of 2018, in which cognizance of the offences under Sec. 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was taken without adhering to the mandatory requirement of sanction under sec. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Sec. 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

(2.) Case of the Respondent Directorate of Enforcement, Union of India is that the prosecution complaint being Complaint Case No. 03 of 2018 dtd. 12/12/2018 numbered as 03 before the Special Court was filed against one Ram Vinod Prasad Sinha. It is further case of the Respondent that 13 FIRs were registered by the Jharkhand Police at Khunti, number of each case has been mentioned at para-1.2 of the prosecution complaint. During the investigation of all the FIRs, it transpired that defalcation of huge amount of Government money running into crores was found to be true against the named accused persons, as per the audit report. It has also come to light that the petitioner Pooja Singhal who was officiating as the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti defalcated Government money in many projects. The Audit Committee suggested that defalcation to the tune of Rs.18.06 crore was committed during the period from 16/2/2009 to 19/7/2010, when she was the Principal Authority for sanctioning the funds for different development projects in connivance with the engineers who are the named accused persons. During the course of investigation, various premises including that of the petitioner and her associates were raided and searched and huge cash amounting to Rs.19.76 crores were recovered apart from cash and documents/records/digital devices, etc. related to the investigation were also found. The list of money seized from the various associates of this petitioner has been mentioned at page-27 of the prosecution report. The petitioner was confronted with the aforesaid recovery, but she failed to provide any legal source of income. As such, she was arrested on 11/5/2022. Ill gotten money was also invested by the petitioner through her husband, who is also accused in this case.

(3.) It is also the case of the Respondent that during the investigation, the petitioner was misguiding as well as frustrating the investigation by way of evading question and becoming non-responsive to several questions. In light of the evidence collected during the investigation, as per the Respondent, it is clearly established that the source of such huge cash / ill-earned money was not properly accounted by the petitioner Pooja Singhal. Learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences under 3 punishable under sec. 4 of P.M.L. Act, 2002.