[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Shyamal Chakravarty vs The Deputy Director on 18 December, 2025
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-6th Floor, Nirvana Apartment
Morhabadi, P.O. & P.S.-Bariyatu, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834008
... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India,
1st Floor, Chanpura Place, P.O. & P.S.-Bank Road, Near Gandhi
Maidan, Patna, Bihar-800001 .... .... ....
Respondent
------
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
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
------
CAV on 04/12/2025 Pronounced on 18 /12/2025
1. 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 car-
parking space of the flat, has been dismissed.
2. 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
2025:JHHC:38059
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.
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
2025:JHHC:38059
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.
3. 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.
4. 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
Kishore Fogla, the proprietor of M/s Nand Kishore Fogla,
2025:JHHC:38059
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).
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.
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
2025:JHHC:38059
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.
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:-
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
Rajendra Kumar and Shyamal Chakravarty were
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
2025:JHHC:38059
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/-
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.
After investigation, three charge-sheets has been filed
by the CBI Ranchi against the concerned accused persons i.e.
2025:JHHC:38059
(i). Charge-sheet No. 05/2011 dated 10.08.2011 of
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;
(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;
(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.
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
enforcement case information report (ECIR) No.
2025:JHHC:38059
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.
5. After investigation, the provisional attachment order (PAO)
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
2025:JHHC:38059
upheld and confirmed the attachment order which has been
assailed in this appeal.
6. 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
time made payment of various amount towards the said
2025:JHHC:38059
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.
2025:JHHC:38059
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the ED submitted that
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 charge-
sheet 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
Kumar could not submit any evidence regarding source for
2025:JHHC:38059
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
2025:JHHC:38059
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
well-reasoned and detailed order in respect of confirmation of
2025:JHHC:38059
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
2025:JHHC:38059
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.
8. 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
well as the appellate tribunal have discussed very minute
2025:JHHC:38059
details in the light of contentions and materials relied upon
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.
9. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
10. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 18 /12/2025
Basant/-N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 20/12/2025
