Partly allowed

FPA-PMLA-2324/DLI/2018 of Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

ATFP24 Jul 2024FPA-PMLA-2324/DLI/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant appealed the Adjudicating Authority's order retaining seized documents and digital records during a PMLA investigation. The Tribunal held that relied-upon non-digital material should be returned if not needed for further investigation, but digital records used as primary evidence must be retained.

What did the court decide?

Reputation of relied-upon documents returned to the appellant if not needed for further investigation; digital records required as primary evidence retained; appellant entitled to copies of relied-upo

FPA-PMLA-2324/DLI/2018 of Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal Vs. The Deputy… — Arbitration | ATFP (2024)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

¶2

FPA-PMLA-2324/DLI/2018 Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi … Respondent

¶3

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who Argued

¶4

For the Appellant :None For the Respondent : Mr. Munidra Dvivedi, Adv.

¶5

CORAM

¶6

SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

¶7

FINAL ORDER 24.07.2024

¶8

Dictated by: Rajesh Malhotra

¶9

Present appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in Original Application No. 140/2017 vide which retention of seized/ freezed documents & digital record etc. was allowed.

¶10

As per the facts of the case, CBI registered FIR dated 22.09.2015, wherein it is alleged that in pursuance to criminal conspiracy, Mr. J.P. Singh agreed to obtain illegal gratification by abusing his official position along with co-accused persons, namely, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Mr. Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal, Mr. Sonu Yogendra Jalan, Shri Dhruv Kumar Singh and others. After the registration of said FIR, respondent ED registered ECIR 03/AMZO/2015 dated 17.03.2017. During investigation by respondent ED, it is revealed that Shri J.P. Singh the then Joint Director, E.D. was found to be indulged in corrupt practices in the investigation of cricket betting case. In investigation, he was assisted by his junior official Shri Sanjay Kumar, A.D., E.D. Both of them took huge amount of bribes as quid pro quo for acts of

¶11

FPA-PMLA-2324/DLI/2018 Shri Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal v. E.D., Delhi

¶12

¶13

omission and commission during investigation of said cricket betting case. Mr. Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal demanded Rs. 3 crores from the suspects in cricket betting case, in lieu of favour in the investigation of E.D. case. He apprised Mr. Manoj Jain that matter of Surinder Mandi had already been sorted out by them in lieu of bribe. Mr. Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal assured Manoj Jain of proper help from E.D., as he wielded much influence over J.P. Singh, J.D., E.D. The deal was finalized for amount of Rs. 2.75 crore with Manoj Jain. Later, another deal was also finalized for amount of Rs. 50 lakhs from Surinder Kalra @ Mandi at Hotel Le Meridian. During investigation, it is also revealed that Mr. J.P. Singhasked to collect the same money through his conduits which routed to Lucknow. The transfer of ill-gotten money/bribe from Mumbai to Lucknow was done by Angarias, as per the instruction of Mr. Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal and Mr. Sonu Jalan. The ill gotten money was received by Mr. Dhruv Kumar Singh and the same was parked in his various accounts/accounts of the company.

¶14

During investigation, ED recorded the statement of many persons including the suspects u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002. On the basis of the revelation from the statements of various persons and documents, the search was conducted on 9 different premises on 13.10.2017, including the premises of present appellant. During search many articles, digital records, documents etc. were seized from the residential premises of the Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal at Flat No. 2001, Tower No. 6, 20^th Floor, Prem Nagar, Rustamjee Ozone, Goregaon (W), Mumbai detailed as under:

¶15

FPA-PMLA-2324/DLI/2018 Shri Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal v. E.D., Delhi

¶16

¶17

i. Samsumg Galaxy S8 (black colour), Model no. SM-G950FD having IMEI (MEID) and S/N nos. i) 3580570815998521/01 and ii) 358058081599850/01 and SN- R28J80S8VF containing SIM of contact no. 9769111201 used by Mrs. Barkha Agarwal w/o Sh. Bimla Agarwal

¶18

ii. One packet containing one USB SanDisk Cruzer Blade 16 GB and Two memory cards – Sony 4 GB &PSVITa (PCSF-0007).

¶19

iii. Documents containing pages 01 to 68.

¶20

a) Pages 01 to 04 pertains to payment calculations and copy of possession letter of Pent House no. 2001/2101 on 20^th Floor, Tower 6, Rustomjee Ozone.

¶21

b) Page 05 to 68 pertains to copy of sale agreement of Pent House 2001/2101 on 20^th Floor, Tower 06, Rustomjee Ozone.

¶22

iv. A bunch of keys containing two keys bearing nos. (i) 15 and (ii) 15, (godrej make) of Locker No. 71 and 72 of IDBI Bank, Goregaon (W) Branch, Mumbai.

¶23

v. A bunch of keys containing six keys bearing nos. (i) A5, (ii) A17, (iii) A24, (iv) 019, (v) 1735189 and (vi) 1735189. All the keys are of Godrej Mark brand.

¶24

Many documents and digital records and articles were seized from the office premises of appellant Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal at 19/40/C2, Seksaria Industrial Estate, S.V. Road, Malad (W) are detailed as under:

¶25

i. 39 stamps were recovered. Impressions of the said stamps were taken on A-4 page.

¶26

ii. One Hard disk of IBM server located at 1^st Floor of office bearing serial no. WCANY4472614.

¶27

iii. One Hard disk of computer used by Smt. Varsha Mhatre bearing serial no. 6VVGTEES.

¶28

iv. One pen drive containing Downloaded e-mails from email account [email protected].

¶29

FPA-PMLA-2324/DLI/2018 Shri Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal v. E.D., Delhi

¶30

¶31

v. One mobile phone of brand Samsung Sm-G935FD Galaxy S Edge bearing IMEI no. 357327073377653/ 357328073377651.

¶32

vi. One mobile phone of brand MiRedmi 4 bearing IMEI no. 866248036851867/79.

¶33

vii. Details of seized documents:

¶34

S. No.	Document/Box file Description	Page no./ Quantity
1.	Techno Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd. Cash Credit renewal documents2015-16	1 to 66
2.	Bank statements of Gemini Enterprises: a/c no. 312100112214.	1 to 33
3	Fixed assets2009-10	1 to 111
4	Income Tax Returns	1 to 417
5	Balance Sheet: Bimal Agarwal, Kishore Agarwal, Kamal Sharma containing5 spiral bindings	5 spiral bindings
6	The State Co-Operative marketing Federation Ltd. (All documents file)	1 to 111
7	Misc. documents related to accounts	1 to 46.

¶35

viii. Details of seized Cheque Book:

¶36

Sr. No.	Account No.	A/c Holders Name	Name of the Bank
1	000312100092347	Amini Industries	Bharat Cooperative
2	8691102000001632	Amini Industries	IDBI Bank
3	698605500042	Amini Industries	ICICI Bank
4	121-107233	D Plastics	Bharat Cooperative
5	030012100108920	Diamond Technical Industries	Bharat Cooperative
6	0691102000006033	Diamond Technical Industries	IDBI Bank
7	000312100112214	Gemini Enterprises	Bharat Cooperative
8	003612100013357	Glasswood and Lucky Industries	Bharat Cooperative
9	003612100003879	Glasswood and Lucky Industries	Bharat Cooperative
10	003612100004302	HaifaTrade andTechnologies	Bharat Cooperative
11	06771011000566	Haifa Trade and Technologies	Oriental Bank of Commerce
12	036012100000632	Hinghness Estates Pvt Ltd	Bharat Cooperatives
13	003612100002520	LeckyDevelopers	Bharat Cooperatives
14	121-109536	Middle Earth Enterprises	Bharat Enterprises
15	003012100107512	Panchraytna Plastics	Bharat Cooperatives
16	0691102000007153	Panchraytna Plastics	IDBI Bank
17	000312100101034	Samarth Eractor and Developers	Bharat Cooperatives
18	000313100006505	Techno Trade Impex India Pvt Ltd	Bharat Cooperative
19	691102000000152	Techno Trade Impex India Pvt Ltd	IDBI Bank
20	914020010855364	Techno Trade Impex India Pvt Ltd	Axis Bank
21	003612100002162	VaradVinaayakGardens	Bharat Cooperatives
22	003612100002162	Varad Vinaayak Gardens	Bharat Cooperatives
23	0691102000001625	Varad Vinaayak Gardens	IDBI Bank
ix.	Details of seized	Pass book:

¶37

S. No.	Account no.	A/c Holder’s Name	Bank’s Name
1	101/42254	Kishore Agarwal	Bharat Cooperative
2	0691104000067184	Bimla Kumar Agarwal	IDBI Bank
3	101/34034	Rashmi Ramgopal Agarwal	Bharat Cooperative

¶38

FPA-PMLA-2324/DLI/2018 Shri Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal v. E.D., Delhi

¶39

¶40

4	101/38430	Bimal Agarwal HUF	Bharat Cooperative
5	000310100338814	KishoreAgarwal	Bharat Cooperative
6	000310100325548	Bimal Agarwal	Bharat Cooperative

¶41

After search and seizure, Original Application No. 140/2017 was filed before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority for the retention of the said seized/freezed material on the ground that investigation in the matter is going on; scrutiny of the documents is going on and will take time to complete; data from all the digital devices is being retrieved and analysed and it will take some time; further the recovered data will be required to be confronted with the concerned persons. Prayer is accordingly made before Adjudicating Authority to grant permission to retain the said seized/freezed material/articles.

¶42

Ld. Adjudicating Authority issued the show cause notice and after going through the submissions filed by the concerned parties, allowed the Original Application vide order dated 04.04.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the present appeal.

¶43

Appellant in the grounds of appeal challenged the impugned order on the grounds as mentioned therein.

¶44

Ld. Counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal on the ground that prosecution complaint is already filed in the present case and most of the seized/freezed material vide search dated 13.10.2017 from the residential and office premises of present appellant is relied upon in the said prosecution case. He further pointed out that many incriminating documents were also retrieved from digital records seized from the possession of the present appellant, and hence, in order to prove the said retrieved documents, digital records will be required as a primary evidence

¶45

FPA-PMLA-2324/DLI/2018 Shri Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal v. E.D., Delhi

¶46

¶47

to corroborate the same, and hence, the digital records cannot be returned. He further argued that after filing of the prosecution complaint, the present appeal technically became infructuous and hence, present appeal be dismissed being devoid of any merits.

¶48

After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the respondent, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the same. In the present case, search was conducted on 13.10.2017 at the residential and official premises of appellant Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal. During search, many documents/ articles and electronic devices were seized/freezed and the same were permitted to be retained by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 04.04.2018. As per contention of Ld. Counsel for the respondent, prosecution complaint is already filed and most of the seized material and digital devices are relied upon in the said prosecution complaint.Accordingly, we are of the view that-

¶49

i).All relied upon documents and digital records, if any, be returned to the appellant, if the same is not required for the purpose of any further investigation.

¶50

ii). Appellant is entitled to obtain copies of relied upon documents and cloned copies of digital records cited in the prosecution complaint u/s 208 Cr.P.C. and hence, prayer for releasing such relied upon material/ records is hereby declined.

¶51

iii). If respondent ED is also relying upon any retrieved documents or material from the digital record, then the said digital record cannot be permitted to be returned to the appellant as the same may be required at the time of prosecution evidence, being primary evidence.

¶52

FPA-PMLA-2324/DLI/2018 Shri Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal v. E.D., Delhi

¶53

¶54

In the light of our observations in the preceding para, the present appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid direction.

¶55

Appeal Partly Allowed.

¶56

Pronounced on this 24^th Day of July, 2024.

¶57

RajeshMalhotra Member

¶58

G.C. Mishra Member

¶59

‘AB’

FPA-PMLA-2324/DLI/2018 of Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-2324/DLI/2018 of Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases