Uttarakhand High Court

Surjeet Singh @ Sukhjeet Singh ... vs Directorate Of Enforcement ... on 23 November, 2022

                                                           Reserved
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 901 of 2021


Surjeet Singh @ Sukhjeet Singh Aulakh ...... Petitioner


                                Vs.

Directorate of Enforcement (PMLA)
Govt. of India                                    ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Advocate for the respondent.

                       With
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1428 of 2021


Sandeep Gupta                                 ...... Petitioner

                                Vs.

Directorate of Enforcement (PMLA)
Govt. of India                               ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. P.C. Petshali and Mr. Kaushal Sah Jagati, Advocates for the
petitioner.
Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Advocate for the respondent.

                           JUDGMENT

Per: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Since common question of law and facts

are involved in both these petitions, they are being

decided by this common judgment.

2. Challenge in both these petitions is made

to order dated 08.02.2021, passed in Special Sessions

Trial No.1 of 2021, M/s Directorate of Enforcement

(PMLA) Vs. Ms. Wit Edulink Pvt Ltd, by the court of

Special Judge, PMLA/Sessions Judge Dehradun ("the

case"). By it, both the petitioners have been summoned

under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering

Act, 2002 ("the Act").

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

4. Facts necessary to appreciate the

controversy, briefly stated, are as follows: Reports were

received by the police that the petitioners and others

conspired and cheated various persons to the tune of Rs.

1.49 Crores by dishonestly inducing them in getting

admission in the Post-Graduation Course under

Management Seat in the Himalayan Institute & Hospital

Trust, Jolly Grant, Dehradun (HIHT Medical College).

After investigation, chargesheet was submitted against

the petitioners and others. In that matter, cognizance

has already been taken. Thereafter, the respondent filed

a complaint against the petitioners and others under

Section 3 read with 4 of the Act. It is the basis of the

case, in which on 08.02.2021, cognizance has been

taken against the petitioners and others and they have

been summoned to answer accusations under Section 4

of the Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Surjeet

Singh would submit that no, prima facie, case is made

out against the petitioner Surjeet Singh. He would

submit that money was not deposited in the account of

Surjeet Singh; he did not receive any money; he was not

paid any kind of commission; the petitioner Surjeet

Singh did not impersonate; he was merely present with

one of the co-accused. It is argued that mere presence

cannot be termed as participation. Therefore, it is argued

that no case is made out.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sandeep

Gupta would adopt the arguments, as advanced on

behalf of petitioner Surjeet Singh. He would submit that

no offence is made out against the petitioner Sandeep

Gupta.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent would submit that the complaint

categorically reveals the role of the petitioners; the

witnesses have told as to how they were cheated by both

the petitioners. It is argued that the petitioners helped

the co-accused in concealing the proceeds of crime.

Reference has been made to the statements and

averments in the complaint filed in the case. It is

submitted that there is no ground to make any

intervention.

8. Section 3 of the Act defines money

laundering. It is as hereunder:-

"3. Offence of money-laundering.--

Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to

indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a

party or is actually involved in any process or

activity connected with the proceeds of crime

including its concealment, possession, acquisition

or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted

property shall be guilty of offence of money-

laundering.

Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it

is hereby clarified that,--

(i) a person shall be guilty of offence of

money-laundering if such person is

found to have directly or indirectly

attempted to indulge or knowingly

assisted or knowingly is a party or is

actually involved in one or more of the

following processes or activities

connected with proceeds of crime,

namely:--

(a) concealment; or

(b) possession; or

(c) acquisition; or

(d) use; or

(e) projecting as untainted

property; or

(f) claiming as untainted property,

in any manner whatsoever;

(ii) the process or activity connected with

proceeds of crime is a continuing

activity and continues till such time a

person is directly or indirectly enjoying

the proceeds of crime by its

concealment or possession or

acquisition or use or projecting it as

untainted property or claiming it as

untainted property in any manner

whatsoever."

9. Section 4 of the Act provides punishment

for money laundering.

10. A bare reading of Section 3 of the Act

makes it abundantly clear that assisting someone in any

activity connected with proceeds of crime, including its

concealment, possession, acquisition or use is also

money laundering. Proceeds of crime has also been

defined under Section 2(u) of the Act. It is as hereunder:-

"2. Definitions.--(1) In this Act, unless the context

otherwise requires,--

(u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad;

Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property

which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence;"

11. In the complaint filed against the

petitioners and others, the role of both the petitioners is

categorically spelled out. It is as hereunder:-

"15.6 Sandeep Gupta (Accused No.6)

Sandeep Gupta one of the accused who

has played an active role in inducing the

complainants in getting admission in the Post

Graduation course in HIHT Medical College, Jolly

Grant, Dehradun. He projected himself as the PA

to the VC of HIHT Medical College, Jolly Grant,

Dehradun. He has admitted in his statement that

he met the complainants at Hotel.

Sandeep Gupta in connivance with other

accused persons has generated huge funds to the

tune of Rs. 1.29 Cr. Through criminal activity

related to the scheduled offence. He projected

himself as the PA to the VC of HIHT Medical

College, Jolly Grant, Dehradun. He used to get

commission for the said work. These funds are

nothing but proceeds of crime generated through

criminal activity related to the scheduled offence.

Thus, Sandeep Gupta is one of the main

architects involved in cheating the candidates by

falsely impersonating himself as the PA to the VC

of HIHT Medical College, Jolly Grant, Dehradun

and giving false assurance of their admission in

Medical PG Course in HIHT/SRHU in lieu of huge

sum of donation amount and hence he is directly

or indirectly beneficiary of PoC. He is indulged or

knowingly involved in process/activities of

possession, acquisition; use/concealment of the

POC hence appears to have committed offence of

money laundering under Section 3 of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which

is punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002."

"15.8 Surjeet Singh Alias Sukhjeet Singh

Aulakh (Accused No.8)

Surjeet Singh is one of the accused played

an active role in inducing the complainants in

getting admission in the Post Graduation course in

HIHT Medical College, Jolly Grant, Dehradun. He

was the friend and driver of Rajeev Rana and

accompanied him to Dehradun to assist him in his

work.

Surjeet Singh in connivance with other

accused persons has generated huge funds to the

tune of Rs. 1.29 Cr. through criminal activity

related to the scheduled offence. He used to get

commission for assisting Rajeev Rana in the said

work. These funds are nothing but proceeds of

crime generated through criminal activity related

to the scheduled offence.

Thus, Surjeet Singh is one of the main

architects involved in aiding and abetting of the

money laundering activities indulged in by the

accused persons. He was the friend and driver of

Rajeev Rana and he used to accompany him to

Dehradun to assist him in his work and he used to

get commission for the same hence he is directly or

indirectly beneficiary of PoC. He is indulged or

knowingly involved in process/activities of

possession, acquisition; use/concealment of the

POC hence appears to have committed offence of

money laundering under Section 3 of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which

is punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002."

12. The respondent has also filed the

statements of one of the victims Dr. Tarun Rao. He has

also stated about the role of both the petitioners. It is as

hereunder:-

"Sandeep Gupta:- He is the one whom I

met in HIHT medical college cancer institute along

with Rajiv Rana, Sukhjeet Singh and Ankush

Sagar Khatri. He introduced himself as academic

co ordinator in HIHT medical college and spoke to

me about the various PG seats and about the

payment to be made."

"Sukhjith Singh:- He was the one whom I

met with Rajiv Rana in Delhi and along with whom

I came to Dehradun from Delhi every time to make

payments for PG seat admission. He told himself to

be a Delhi govt employee."

13. This victim Dr. Tarun Rao has spoken in

detail about the role of petitioners Sandeep Gupta and

Surjeet Singh, who along with other co-accused met him

in the HIHT Medical College Cancer Institute and

introduced themselves as the employee of the

Administration of HIHT Medical College. Dr. Tarun Rao

has stated as hereunder with regard to the incident of

17.03.2015 as follows:-

"Then I reached Delhi on 17.03.2015 in

the morning and Sh. Rajeev Rana met me at

Hazrat Nizamudin Railway Station at 5:00 AM and

took me to Dehradun by his (i) 10 Dark Gray

Colored Car bearing registration No. DL-8CZ8841

and at Ghaziabad one more person namely Sh.

Surjeet Singh also joined us and we all three

reached HIHT, Jolly Grant, Dehradun at about

2:30 PM. At HIHT we went to Cancer Department

where three persons namely Sh. Rohit Chauhan,

Sh. Ankush Sagar Khatri & Sh. Sandeep Gupta

were introduced by Shri. Rajeev Rana to me as

employee of Administration Wing of HIHT. They all

showed me college but did not allow me to talk to

any faculty or resident doctors. There after we all

left HIHT for Hotel Madhuban Dehradun. Shri

Ankush Khatri and other two persons travelled in

their Skoda Laura Car."

14. He has also stated as to what had

happened on 18.03.2015. On that date, according to Dr.

Tarun Rao, petitioner Surjeet Singh along with Rajeev

Rana met him where he had paid some money to Rajeev

Rana. The part of the statement is as follows:-

"On the next day i.e. 18.03.2015 I

alongwith Rajeev Rana and Surjeet Singh went to

Nearby SBI Bank and I have done a NEFT

transaction of Rs. 2 Lakhs in HDFC Bank (A/c

16681930006649), Anand Vihar New Delhi of

Rajeev Rana. After that I have withdrawn Rs. 40

thousand from my SBI account ATM. There after I

alongwith both of them went to SBI main Branch

Dehradun and have withdrawn Rs. 40 thousand

Green Channel Counter and Rs. 50 thousand

through self cheque. After that I along with Rajeev

Rana and Surjeet Singh went to Madhuban Hotel

and handed over Rs. 1.30 lakhs to VC

Dhashmana. By this way I had paid Rs. 4.10

Lakhs in cash and through bank transfer. There

after an amount of Rs. 90 thousand was also

transferred into the same account of Rajeev Rana

on 20.03.2015. Total amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs was

paid to Rajeev Rana and V.C. Dhashmana as a

token of donation amount."