Shyamal Chakravarty Vs the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

2025:JHHC:38059

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.C. (S.B.) No. 09 of 2024

------

Shyamal Chakravarty, aged about 60 years, son of Late Shri Laxmi Narain Chakravarty, R/o-6^th Floor, Nirvana Apartment Morhabadi, P.O. & P.S.-Bariyatu, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834008

¶5

… .... …. Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India, 1^st Floor, Chanpura Place, P.O. & P.S.-Bank Road, Near Gandhi Maidan, Patna, Bihar-800001 .... .... .... Respondent

¶8

------ For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Ms. Akriti Shree, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, Sr. Panel Counsel Mr. Romit Kumar, Advocate

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

------ CAV on 04/12/2025 Pronounced on 18 /12/2025

¶13

The instant Appeal under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short “PMLA, 2002”) is directed against the final order dated 06.08.2024 passed by Learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi in FPA-PMLA-2547/PTN/2018 in connection with O.C. No. 901 of 2018 whereby the First Appeal of the Appellant against the confirmation order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority with respect to property bearing Flat No. 1A, 1st Floor, Sugam Hemant Apartment, 75 Bondel Road, Kolkata-700019 admeasuring 1569 Sq. Ft. and a carparking space of the flat, has been dismissed.

¶14

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one Dr. Pradeep Kumar and Ors. have been charged for indulging in criminal conspiracy, cheating, dishonestly inducing delivery

¶15

2025:JHHC:38059

¶16

of property, forgery of valuable security, will, etc. using as genuine a forged document or electronic record and criminal misconduct by a public servant and thereby causing huge loss to the government exchequer.

¶17

Vide charge-sheet No. 5/2011 dated 10.08.2011, it has been alleged by the CBI, Ranchi that Rs. 31.68 Crores were squandered out of N.R.H.M. Funds by the public servants namely Sri Bhanu Pratap Shahi, Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Dr. Vijay Shankar Narayan Singh, Sri Madan Mohan Prasad, Sri Pradyut Mukherjee and others in collusion with private persons namely Sri Nandlal Kishore Fogla, Sri Rajesh Fogla and Sri Shyamal Chakravarty (appellant herein) and others. Dr. Pradeep Kumar being the mission director functioned as Chief Executive Officer, Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Society, during the period from 20.06.2008 to 03.08.2009 and while functioning, as such, he was directly responsible for any omission and commission. CBI Investigation of the case has established that Sri Bhanu Pratap Shahi entered into criminal conspiracy with Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Dr. Vijay Shankar Narayan Singh, Sri Madan Mohan Prasad, Sri Pradyut Mukherjee, Sri Riyaz Khan Faridi and Sri Rajesh Kr. Fogla. These persons entered into criminal conspiracy and dishonestly and fraudulently cheated the government of India as well as State Government of Jharkhand by awarding the tender for purchase of 5000 Ltr. of disinfectant, 300 pieces of fogger machine and 1000 pieces of dispenser at exorbitant

¶18

A.C. (SB) No. 09 of 2024

¶19

2

¶20

2025:JHHC:38059

¶21

rates in favour of M/s. Nand Kishore Fogla. The omission and commission on the part of the above officials caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 13,62,13,600/- (Rupees Thirteen Crores Sixty-Two Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred only) and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves and others.

¶22

The investigation of the case further revealed that Dr. Pradeep Kumar entered into criminal conspiracy with Dr. Vijay Shankar Narayan Singh, Sri Madan Mohan Prasad, Sri Pradyut Mukherjee and also with Rajesh Kr. Fogla and in pursuance of the conspiracy (by abusing their respective official positions), dishonestly and fraudulently cheated the government of India and State government by awarding the tender for purchase of sanitary napkins at exorbitant rates in favour of M/s Nand Kishore Fogla. The omission and commission on the part of the above officials caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 2,88,52,506.25/- (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Eight Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred Six Point Two Five only) and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves and others.

¶23

The investigation further revealed that Dr. Pradeep Kumar received illegal gratification amount to Rs. 4,85,00,000/(Rupees Four Crores Eighty-Five Lakhs only) from M/s Nand Kishore Fogla in five instalments. This is proved by the confessional statements of Rajesh Kumar Fogla, son of Nand

¶24

Kishore Fogla, the proprietor of M/s Nand Kishore Fogla,

¶25

A.C. (SB) No. 09 of 2024

¶26

3

¶27

2025:JHHC:38059

¶28

recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. by the judicial magistrate of First Class. The amount of pay off was routed through Shyamal Chakraborty (present appellant). The confessional statement of Shri Rajesh Kumar Fogla stands corroborated by Shri Vikash Khetan (who too made his statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C., as an accused).

¶29

The investigation further revealed that Dr. Pradeep Kumar also held sensitive and important post during the period November 2000 to August 2009 and was found in possession of pecuniary resources, or property, disproportionate to his known source of income. He had acquired assets either in his own name or in the name of his dependent family members. Dr. Pradeep Kumar formed Pradeep Kumar HUF and Nand Lal HUF and started filing separate IT Returns for the HUFs from the FY 2004-05. Further, Dr. Pradeep Kumar vide sale deed No. 2668 dated 31.01.2005 sold a flat at Rajouri Garden, Delhi for Rs. 17 lacs, and subsequently opened a Capital Gain account showing sale proceeds to be Rs. 20.20 lacs.

¶30

Investigation also revealed that attached immovable properties namely (i) 1A, 1st Floor, Sugam Hemant Apartment, 75 Bondel Road, Kolkata-700019 purchased through registered sale deed 9786 dated 31.08.2009 area 1569 Sq. Ft. total consideration amount with stamp duty and registration Rs. 42,28,764/- (ii) a car-parking space No. 12 in Apartment, 75 Bondel Road, Kolkata vide sale deed No. 9793

¶31

A.C. (SB) No. 09 of 2024

¶32

4

¶33

2025:JHHC:38059

¶34

dated 11.09.2009 by HUF-D-3 total value including stamp duty and registration Rs. 70,575/- were purchased by Dr. Pradeep Kumar in his own name and in the name of Nand Lal HUF (Karta Rajendra Kumar), in the name of his brother Rajendra Kumar and Shyamal Chakraborty (present appellant) from the proceeds of crime which source of acquisition is not substantiated by them.

¶35

It was also revealed during investigation that both the Demands Drafts dated 26.12.2007 for Rs. 5 Lacs and dated 08.01.2008 for Rs. 4 Lacs were created by way of debit from the account No. 4910100007052 in the name of Rajendra Kumar held with Bank of India, Shyamali Branch, Ranchi. Scrutiny of the about account number showing in the name of Rajendra Kumar revealed that the credit was built up as mentioned in following manner:-

¶36

From the audit report and ITR submitted by Shyamal Chakravarty, it can be seen that sale of flats by M/s Essar Enterprises was done and profit made only in the FY 2009-10. Hence, there was no income to this firm prior to FY2009-10. Against no profit prior to FY 2009-10, both the partners Kumar and were Rajendra Shyamal Chakravarty withdrawing money from the partnership business. From the audit report for the FY 2009-10, it is also apparent that their initial invested Capital remained intact, till the dissolution of the partnership firm in September, 2010. This leads to the conclusion that amount credited from M/s Essar Enterprises

¶37

A.C. (SB) No. 09 of 2024

¶38

5

¶39

2025:JHHC:38059

¶40

is unaccounted and from the illicit sources, as the amount was generated without any actual investment and/or earning by said partnership firm in the business of construction. Investigation further revealed that in the sale deed No. 9786 dated 31.08.2009 wherein the seller of the properties is Sri Arun Kumar Agarwal. Rajendra Kumar vide his letter dated Nil, which has been received by ED on 13.10.2015, he has himself declared that following loans were taken by Nand Lal HUF for purchase of this Flat (i) Loan taken from M/s Pathak Telecon Co. (P) Ltd.-Rs. 20,00,000/(ii) Loan taken from M/s Hindustan Credit Corporation -Rs. 5,95,000/-

¶41

The above loan amount was taken for the purpose of purchase of flat as the payment against purchase had already been completed in the year 2007. This fact is further established by the fact that Rs. 4 lacs received from the account of Hindustan Credit Corporation were utilized for preparing of Fixed Deposit on the very same date, which is still invested in that Fixed Deposit. This shows that payment was made out of some other sources, which in absence of any proper explanation from Rajendra Kumar, as well as Shyamal Chakrabarty, appears to be proceeds of crime generated by Dr. Pradeep Kumar.

¶42

After investigation, three charge-sheets has been filed by the CBI Ranchi against the concerned accused persons i.e.

¶43

A.C. (SB) No. 09 of 2024

¶44

6

¶45

2025:JHHC:38059

¶46

(i). Charge-sheet No. 05/2011 dated 10.08.2011 of

¶47

Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, AHD, Ranchi filed before the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Section 13(1)(c), 13(1(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;

¶48

(ii) Charge-sheet No. 06/2011 dated 05.09.2011 of Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, AHD, Ranchi filed before the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 477A of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;

¶49

(iii) Charge-sheet No. 12/2013 dated 31.08.2013 of Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Ranchi filed for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the IPC.

¶50

The name of appellant Shyamal Chakravarty did not find place in charge-sheet No. 12/2013 dated 31.08.2013 (in FIR No. RC-01(A)/2011-R dated 03.01.2011) filed before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi. Whereas the name of Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Rajendra Kumar, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Dhiraj (partner of M/s Jascon Interbuild and M/s Rebloon Impex,Ranchi), Shri Sita Ram Pathak (Director of M/s. Pathak Telecom Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi) and Naresh Kumar Kejriwal (C.A. of Pradeep Kumar and Rajendra Kumar). The

¶51

enforcement case information report (ECIR) No. A.C. (SB) No. 09 of 2024

¶52

7

¶53

2025:JHHC:38059

¶54

12&13/PAT/2012 dated 18.05.2012 were recorded by the Directorate of Enforcement for initiation of investigation under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred to as PMLA) 2002. After the completion of investigation, the respondent filed complaint under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 registered as ECIR No. 2 of 2018 and the learned Special Judge took cognizance vide order dated 19.11.2018 against 6 accused persons namely Pradeep Kumar, Rajendra Kumar, Nand Lal HUF, Shyamal Chakrabarty, Dharmendra Kumar Dhiraj and Naresh Kumar Kejriwal.

¶55

After investigation, the provisional attachment order (PAO)

¶56

No. 4/2018 dated 20.02.2018 was issued by the ED under Section 5(1) of the PMLA whereas several movable and immovable properties of Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Rajendra Kumar, Nand Lal HUF and only one immovable property of the appellant Shyamal Chakrabarty (being 50 % shareholder) was attached and accordingly as stipulated under Section 5(5) of the PMLA, the original complaint (OC) No. 901 of 2018 dated 15.03.2018 was filed by the respondent ED before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority under PMLA, New Delhi and the same provisional order of attachment was confirmed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 03.08.2018. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of adjudicating authority before the Appellate Tribunal which was also

¶57

A.C. (SB) No. 09 of 2024

¶58

8

¶59

2025:JHHC:38059

¶60

upheld and confirmed the attachment order which has been assailed in this appeal.

¶61

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned appellate tribunal has failed to appreciate that the appellant is only responsible to show the source of money to the extent of his share of 50% of consideration amount of the flat. The appellate Tribunal has also ignored the source of income of his own shown by the appellant and failed to properly appreciate the copies of annual returns filed by the appellant for the year 2009-10 showing the flat at Kolkata as one of the fixed assets of Rs. 21,36,300/- (being 50% of the total consideration of subject property) and also Rs. 1,05,670/as cash in hand on 31.03.2011. It is further argued that the learned appellate tribunal has wrongly held that the payment made to the developer M/s Ashicon Housing Pvt. Ltd. by the purchaser Arun Kumar Agarwal as the proceeds of alleged crime of the appellant and other accused persons observing that said payment was made in the year 2006-07 by the present appellant Shyamal Chakravarty and Nand Lal HUF whereas the payment to the developer and owner of Arun Kumar Agarwal was made in the year 2006-07 by availing loan facility and payment by Shyamal Chakravarty and Nand Lal HUF was made by Arun Kumar Agarwal as per payments. The learned trial court further failed to consider that Mr. Arun Kumar Agarwal (purchaser) has from time to

¶62

time made payment of various amount towards the said

¶63

A.C. (SB) No. 09 of 2024

¶64

9

¶65

2025:JHHC:38059

¶66

consideration amount and has also caused payments of various amounts from the Union Bank of India by obtaining loan facilities from the said Bank and the said purchaser has until the date made and caused by the banker to be made payment of total sum of Rs. 38,58,700/- towards the consideration amount of flat. The agreement to sale dated 03.08.2009 itself shows that the purchaser was handed over possession of the property on 08.10.2007 by the developer. The payments were made through demand drafts which also finds mention in the income tax returns Form-26AS during the said period of the appellant. It is further submitted that the learned appellate tribunal in its concluding paragraph of the impugned order without referring to any substantial materials on record has arrived at a conclusion in confirming the impugned order just on conjecture and surmises. The confessional statement of the co-accused persons including the present appellant has been wrongly taken for consideration completely ignoring the submissions and documentary proof adduced by the appellant. The appellant has been able to explain beyond doubt his source of income for purchasing the impugned attached property to the extent of 50 % of his share which was never financed through Nand Lal HUF. No transaction by the appellant has been proved to be proceeds of crime. Therefore, impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal is absolutely illegal based on conjecture and surmises and liable to be set aside.

¶67

A.C. (SB) No. 09 of 2024

¶68

10

¶69

2025:JHHC:38059

¶70

On the other hand, learned counsel for the ED submitted that

¶71

the appellant has been chargesheeted for serious offence of money laundering and acquiring property by corrupt means and indulge in conspiracy with prime accused persons indulged in corruption. After investigation, CBI filed chargesheet against Dr. Pradeep Kumar and others accused persons including the present appellant Shyamal Chakravarty. There are material showing that Dr. Pradeep Kumar has laundered the illicit wealth with the help of his brother Rajendra Kumar and the present appellant along with Davinder Kumar Dheeraj, Naresh Kejriwal, Inderlal Kejriwal and Sita Ram Pathak. Dr. Pradeep Kumar formed Nand Lal HUF, with the help of his brother Rajendra Kumar, on the advice of Naresh Kejriwal to launder the proceeds of crime. Rajendra Kumar, despite being Karta of the Nand Lal HUF is unaware about the beneficiaries. Rajendra Kumar has entered into the transactions of immovable properties without being aware of the details like locations, owner of the property, mode of payment etc. Further all his transactions have taken place with the help of Shyamal Chakravarty, who used to conceal proceeds of crime acquired by Dr. Pradeep Kumar. In fact, in all the transactions involved money laundering, Shyamal Chakravarty has played a pivotal role in assisting Dr. Pradeep Kumar in laundering the proceeds of crime. It is further submitted that both Dr. Pradeep Kumar and Rajendra

¶72

Kumar could not submit any evidence regarding source for

¶73

A.C. (SB) No. 09 of 2024

¶74

11

¶75

2025:JHHC:38059

¶76

creation of IVPS and KVPs which formed the basis for formation of Nand Lal HUF. This shows that proceeds of crime generated by Dr. Pradeep Kumar were invested in Nand Lal HUF which was formed on the advice of his Chartered Accountant Naresh Kejriwal for the only purpose of concealment and layering of proceeds of crime so that tainted property could be projected as untainted. It is further submitted that that accused Rajendra Kumar in his statement has stated that he took loan from Sitaram Pathak and Inderlal Kejriwal for acquisition of immovable property, but he could not produce any loan agreement and also failed to personally know the above persons. Moreover, all the payment for acquisition of this immovable property had already been done much prior to receipt of the loans. These loans have not been reflected in the books of account. Both Sitaram Pathak and Inderlal Kejriwal transferred the amount to the bank account of Rajendra Kumar on the advice of CA Naresh Kejriwal. It is further submitted that once the investigation of CBI was initiated, the transferred amount was repaid to these firms to project these transactions as genuine. However, money for repayment came from M/s Rhea Enterprises, a firm controlled by Shyamal Chakravarty (appellant). Rajendra Kumar has denied any financial transaction with Rhea Enterprises. This shows that Dr. Pradeep Kumar and Rajendra Kumar are knowingly trying to hide the origin of tainted property and frustrate the proceedings under PMLA

¶77

A.C. (SB) No. 09 of 2024

¶78

12

¶79

2025:JHHC:38059

¶80

with the connivance of Shyamal Chakravarty, Sitaram Pathak, Naresh Kejriwal and Inderlal Kejriwal. It is further submitted that the investigation reveals that Shyamal Chakravarty was partner of Rajendra Kumar in M/s Essar Enterprises, he was granted general power of attorney by Dr. Pradeep Kumar for purchase of property at Udaipur. Shyamal Chakravarty arranged the deal in respect of this transaction. Moreover, for repayment of transferred amount to the firms owned by Sitaram Pathak and Inderlal Kejriwal, the money was credited to the account of Nand Lal HUF from M/s Rhea Enterprises which is controlled by Shyamal Chakravarty. As per statements of Rajesh Kumar Fogla under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and Vikas Khetan also, it transpires that the present appellant used to receive the bribe money for Dr. Pradeep Kumar to the properties purchased through proceeds of crime both movable and immovable under deep routed conspiracy among prime accused Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Rajendra Kumar, Nand Lal HUF and present appellant Shyamal Chakravarty routed through several firms were provisionally attached vide provisional attachment order No. 4 of 2018 dated 20.02.2018. A complaint under Section 5(5) of PMLA, 2002 vide OC No. 901 of 2018 dated 15.03.2018 was filed before the Learned Adjudicating Authority under PMLA for confirmation of the said provisional attachment order. The learned adjudicating authority under PMLA has passed the

¶81

well-reasoned and detailed order in respect of confirmation of

¶82

A.C. (SB) No. 09 of 2024

¶83

13

¶84

2025:JHHC:38059

¶85

the attached property valued at Rs. 1,76,38,527/- vide order dated 03.08.2018. This property was purchased jointly in the name of Shyamal Chakravarty and Nand Lal HUF where Rajendra Kumar is the Karta who happens to be brother of Dr. Pradeep Kumar. It is further submitted that in his statement dated 29.01.2018 recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, Rajendra Kumar has stated that he did not know the beneficiary of Nand Lal HUF despite being Karta of the said Nand Lal HUF. He has expressed his ignorance about the basic details regarding this HUF. This fact itself reflects that Rajendra Kumar is a dummy Karta of the said HUF and the proceeds of the crime generated by Dr. Pradeep Kumar could be laundered through this HUF. Rajendra Kumar has further stated that he is not aware of the details of the property in Kolkata, its price and the exact source of its acquisition rather stated about loan of approx. Rs. 20 Lacs taken from Pathak & Co. The details of loan and its repayment status is also not known to him. Rajendra Kumar has also stated that money was arranged by his brother Dr. Pradeep Kumar’s C.A. Naresh Kejriwal but the loan has not been reflected in the ITR of Nand Lal HUF. It is further submitted that the adjudicating Authority under PMLA as well as learned Appellate Tribunal has rightly confirmed the provisional attachment order in respect of immovable property. The appellant is enjoying the privilege of bail granted in the aforesaid criminal case and the subject matter of dispute is still to be adjudicated during trial

¶86

A.C. (SB) No. 09 of 2024

¶87

14

¶88

2025:JHHC:38059

¶89

of the case. In view of the sufficient materials showing the properties provisionally attached to be outcome of proceeds of crime therefore, impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The concurrent findings of the facts by the adjudicating authority as well as appellate tribunal is fit to be upheld and confirmed and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶90

I have gone through the impugned orders in the light of the rival contentions of the parties as discussed above. It appears from the perusal of the record along with impugned order that the attached properties of this case are proceeds of crime and deliberate attempt to launder the tainted money. The accused persons including the present appellant have given colorable statements regarding source of income and payment of consideration amount. They have also admitted to patch up the matter by false and fabricated plea of loan agreements. Even the formation of Nand Lal HUF by Dr. Pradeep Kumar and his brother Rajendra Kumar under dormant role and ignorance of Rajendra Kumar and direct nexus of Dr. Pradeep Kumar with the present appellant in appointing him as power of attorney holder to purchase properties and statements of accused persons under Section 164 Cr. P.C. including the present appellant sufficient to raise a valid inference showing the attached properties as proceeds of crime. It further appears that the adjudicating authority as

¶91

well as the appellate tribunal have discussed very minute

¶92

A.C. (SB) No. 09 of 2024

¶93

15

¶94

2025:JHHC:38059

¶95

details in the light of contentions and materials relied upon

¶96

by the appellant and recorded concurrent findings of fact. There appears no valid reason to interfere with the impugned orders on the basis of contentions raised on behalf of the appellant as all of the contentions have already been considered and well-reasoned orders have been passed. Therefore, I do not find any merits in this appeal and no error of law in the impugned order calling for any interference, which stands dismissed.

¶97