SUSHIL KUMAR KATIYAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by means of this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.5 of 2015, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial under section 3/4 Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

(2.) I have heard Sri Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Sri Umesh Kumar Yadav, Sri Rajiv Awasthi and learned Senior Advocate Sri Jyotindra Mishra on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Shiv P Shukla and Sri Ankit Srivastava learned counsel appearing for the Union of India.

(3.) The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging therein that Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow Zone registered a case lodged by Special Investigation Branch C.I.D. (Co-operative) against Govind Saran Srivastava and Anil Kumar Agarwal who were Chief Engineer and Accountant in the U.P. Labour and Construction Cooperative Federation Ltd. (in short LACCFED) for embezzlement of Government fund to the tune of more than Rs.12,23,83,000/- during the year 2010-2011. The Special Investigation Branch C.I.D., after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet on 03.11.2012 against eight persons for violation of provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter supplementary charge-sheet was also filed against four persons on 12.03.2013. Thereafter on 25.09.2013 another second supplementary charge-sheet was filed against two persons, one of them was the petitioner and the other was Babu Singh Kushwaha, Ex Minister of U.P. Government. It was also stated in the complaint that all the chargesheeted accused persons were facing trial in the court of Special Judge (P.C. Act), Lucknow. In respect of the petitioner, it was stated that he was absconding and consequently a process under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. was issued by the Court declaring him as absconder and his property was also attached and non-bailable warrant of arrest was also issued against him. It was further stated that the trial against him was pending in the court. It was also stated in the complaint that "the LACCFED" was approved as government construction agency by the order of the U.P. Government dated 24.05.2010 and as such the agency was entitled for executing construction work of standardized structure worth Rupees five crores and non standardized structure worth Rs.2.50 crores for various departments of the government. Some work order was allotted to LACCFED by government departments and funds were also made available to the Society. The funds were deposited in the project related bank account. It was mandatory for the Society to release the payment in respect of a project by account payee cheque only. However, the then Chief Engineer in connivance with the Accountant, released payment under their joint signatures through bearer cheques favouring different departmental engineers. The amount of cheques was fraudulently withdrawn by the accused persons in cash for unlawful gain. It was also stated in the complaint that during investigation it was revealed that the petitioner was the person behind the scam. He became member of LACCFED on 01.04.2010 and was elected as Chairperson on 06.04.2010. He appointed Sri Praveen Kumar Singh as P.R.O. and embezzled government fund by fraudulently withdrawing funds through bearer cheques in the names of the different engineers which were allotted to certain construction work under different government sponsored schemes. It was also revealed during investigation that Sri Preveen Kumar Singh was an Advocate. He came close to the petitioner in a court case. It was further revealed that during the relevant period Babu Singh Kushwaha, who was the Cooperative Minister of U.P. Government also came close to the petitioner and helped him in his fraudulent work. It was also gathered during investigation that the petitioner acquired various immovable property in his name as well as in the name of his wife and the company of which he was Director. Giving details of the evidence collected during investigation, it was prayed that cognizance of the offence under Money Laundering Act be taken and the petitioner be punished for the offence of section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act). It was further prayed that an order be issued for confiscation of the property in terms of section 8 (5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act which were provisionally attached under section 5 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow on perusal of the complaint formed an opinion that a case under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act punishable under section 4 of the Act, is made out against the petitioner and accordingly he took cognizance and issued summons to him fixing a date for appearance. The aforesaid summoning order has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by means of this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.