SANJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint bearing complaint case No. 9 of 2009 was lodged in the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance)-cum-Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi by the complainant Rajiv Sharma alleging therein that the then Chief Minister Shri Madhu Koda, on being elected from one of the Assembly Constituencies, held office of the Minister, Mines and Co-operative, from February, 2005 to September, 2006 and then the office of the Chief Minister from September, 2006 to August, 2008. During the aforesaid period he amassed huge properties movable as well as immovable by indulging in corrupt practices for embezzlement of the public fund in collusion with Vinod Sinha and Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (petitioner). While holding the said offices, he entered into an agreement (M.O.U) with 44 big Industrial Houses to set up the industries in the State of Jharkhand and thereby he received bribe through Vinod Sinha and this petitioner. Having acquired ill-gotten money in crores in connivance with Vinod Sinha and this petitioner, they purchased/invested money in number of companies not only in India but also at abroad including Dubai where crores of rupees were transferred through Hawala. That apart, money was also invested in crores in purchasing land and also in purchasing mines in a foreign country, namely, Liberia. The complainant has also alleged that other Ministers named in the complaint petition also amassed huge properties by illegal means.

(2.) LEARNED court below on receiving the said complaint forwarded it to the Officer-in-Charge, Vigilance Police Station, Ranchi under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for its institution and investigation. Accordingly, it was registered as Vigilance P. S. Case No. 9 of 2009 under Sections 420, 423, 424, 465 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7, 10,11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, on the basis of the allegation made in the vigilance case, Enforcement Directorate lodged Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against Shri Madhu Koda and other Ministers including this petitioner and other persons alleging therein that there has been reasons to believe from the facts disclosed in the vigilance case that the accused persons under criminal conspiracy acquired huge assets both in India and outside India by indulging themselves in criminal act under the Indian Penal Code and also under the Prevention of Corruption Act and as such, prima facie, materials to form an opinion that the offence of money laundering has been committed which is punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner in this respect submits that one can be held liable for an offence under Section 4 of the Act, if he is involved in any process or activities with the proceeds of Schedule Offence and not any other offence but surprisingly, the petitioner and others are being prosecuted on the premise that the properties acquired by the money are proceeds of the crime committed under Sections 420, 423, 424 of the Indian Penal Code but those Offences were declared to be the Scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009 which came into force with effect from 6-3-2009 whereas Shri Madhu Koda did hold post of Chief Ministership from September, 2006 to August, 2008 and, therefore, the petitioner or any other accused cannot be said to have acquired properties in connivance with other accused with the proceeds of the crime and as such, the prosecution under Section 4 of the Act is quite bad.