Rohit Tandon vs The Enforcement Directorate

3. The ECIR   has   been   registered   against   Ashish   Kumar, Raj   Kumar   Goel   and   other   unknown   persons   for   offences punishable under Sections 3/4 of the Act of 2002 on the basis of information/material, as evident from the predicate offence registered   by   P.S.   Crime   Branch,   Delhi   against   the   named accused and unknown accused for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 188 and 120B of IPC, being   FIR   No.205/2016   dated   25th  December,   2016.     The relevant facts noted in the ECIR read thus:

For the same, alleged CA offered 2% commission to the other accused persons on all such transactions.

C. The  accused were  having bank accounts  in the  Naya Bazar branch of Kotak Mahindra Bank but the CA and Bank Manager   Ashish   asked   accused   Raj   Kumar   to   deposit   old currency notes in Cannaught Place branch of Kotak Mahindra Bank.   It   is   also   revealed   that   the   accused   opened   bank accounts   in   the   name   of   Quality   Trading   Company,   Swati Trading   Company,   Shree   Ganesh   Enterprises,   R.K. International,   Mahalxmi   Industires,   Virgo   International   and Sapna International on the basis of forged/false documents and deposited approx. Rs.25 Crore after the demonetization. As   per   the   preliminary   investigation   of   the   said   case   it   is transpired   that   accused   Raj   Kumar   Goel,   Bank   Manager Ashish, CA along with their associates are involved in a deep roted conspiracy and were indulged in converting old currency which   were   entrusted   to   bank/Govt   officials   and   were supposed to be delivered to general public/guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India/Ministry of Finance and hand thus cheated the public at large. The accused persons have also caused monetary loss to the Govt. of India and thereby Committed offences u/s 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 188, 120­B IPC.”   It   is   then   noted   that   the   offences   under   Sections   420, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC are scheduled offences under the Act of   2002   and   that   from   the   available   facts,   a   reasonable inference   is   drawn   that   the   named   accused   and   unknown accused   have   made   illegal   earnings   arising   out   of   the   said criminal conspiracy which might have undergone the process of laundering and thereby an offence under Section 3 of the Act of 2002 was made out.   It is noted that prima facie case for 5 commission   of   offence   under   Section   3   punishable   under Section 4 of the Act of 2002 was made out and accordingly the case is being registered and taken up for investigation under the Act of 2002 and rules framed thereunder.

4. The   learned   Sessions   Judge   while   considering   the   bail application   adverted   to   the   relevant     materials   including   the CDR   analysis   of   Mobile   number   of   Ashish   Kumar,   Branch Manager,   Kotak   Mahindra   Bank,   K.G.   Marg   Branch,   Kamal Jain,   CA   of   Rohit   Tandon   (hereinafter   referred   to   as “appellant”), Dinesh Bhola, Raj Kumar Goel;  the statements of Kamal Jain, Dinesh Bhola and Ashish Kumar, recorded under Section 50 of the Act of 2002; and analysis of bank statements of   stated   companies.   All   these   reveal   that   Ashish   Kumar conspired with other persons to get deposited Rs.38.53 Crore in   cash   of   demonetized   currency     into   bank   accounts   of companies   and   got  demand  drafts  issued in   fictitious   names with intention of getting them cancelled and thereby converting the   demonetized   currency   into   monetized   currency   on commission   basis.     Further,   the   investigation   also   revealed that  the   entire   cash  was  collected  on  the  instructions  of the 6 appellant herein, by Ashish Kumar, Raj Kumar Goel and others through   Dinesh   Bhola,   an   employee   of   the   appellant. According to the prosecution, all the associates of the appellant acted   on   instructions   of   the   appellant   for   getting   issued   the demand   drafts   against   cash   deposit   with   the   help   of   Ashish Kumar, Branch Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank  and others, to the tune of Rs.34.93 Crore from Kotak Mahindra Bank, K.G. Marg   Branch.   It   was   also   noted   that   the   demand   drafts     of Rs.3.60   Crore   were   issued   in   fictitious   names   on   the instructions   of   Bank   Manager   Ashish   Kumar   in   lieu   of commission received by him in old cash currency. The demand drafts   amounting   to   Rs.38   Crore   were   issued   in   favour   of Dinesh   Kumar   and   Sunil   Kumar   which   were   recovered   from the   custody   of   Kamal   Jain   who   had   kept   the   same   on   the instructions   of   the   appellant.   Out   of   the   said   amount,   the demand   drafts   of   other   banks,   apart   from   Kotak   Mahindra Bank Limited, were also recovered. The prosecution suspected that   there   could   be   other   dubious   transactions  made   by   the appellant   in   other   banks   and   that   Ashish   Kumar,   Bank Manager   and   others   were   acting   on   the   instructions   of   the appellant for executing the crime.

(vi) Issue  rule nisi in terms of  Prayers (i) to  (v) above;

In   other   words,   the   property   derived   or   obtained   by   the appellant   was   the   result   of   criminal   activity   relating   to   a scheduled offence. The argument of the appellant that there is 42 no allegation in the charge­sheet filed in the scheduled offence case   or   in   the   prosecution   complaint   that   the   unaccounted cash   deposited   by   the   appellant   is   the   result   of   criminal activity, will not come to the aid of the appellant. That will have to be negatived in light of the materials already on record.  The possession   of   such   huge   quantum   of   demonetized   currency and   new   currency   in   the   form   of   Rs.2000/­   notes,   without disclosing   the   source   from   where   it     is   received   and   the purpose   for   which it is received, the appellant    has  failed to dispel the  legal presumption that he was involved in money­ laundering and the property was proceeds of crime.

29. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, we are not inclined   to   interfere   with   the   well   considered   opinion   of   the Sessions   Court   and   the   High   Court   rejecting   the   prayer   for grant of regular bail to the appellant.  However, considering the fact that the appellant is in custody since 28 th December, 2016 and   the   offence   is   punishable   with   imprisonment   for   a   term extending to seven years only, but not less than three years, the Trial Court will be well advised to proceed with the trial on day­to­day basis expeditiously. We clarify that the Trial Court 43 must  examine the evidence/material brought on record during the   trial   on   its   own   merit   and   not   be   influenced   by   the observations in this decision which are limited for considering the prayer for grant of regular bail.

30. Accordingly,   the   appeals   are   dismissed   in   the   above terms.

…………………………….CJI.