- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement.
(2.) PETITIONER has been made accused for the offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA 2002), in connection with Enforcement Case Information Report ECIR/02/PAT/09/AD. The brief facts of the case are necessary to be mentioned. A complaint case was filed by one Rajeev Sharma which was registered as Complaint Case No. 01 of 2009 and it was sent for institution of the police case under the provision of Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., on the basis of which the vigilance P. S. Case No. 9 of 2009 was instituted against this petitioner and the other co -accused persons including the then Chief Minister of Jharkhand, for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 423, 434, 465, 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 on the allegation that huge property was amassed by the petitioner and the other accused persons misusing their official position as Chief Minister and the Minister in the State of Jharkhand. It may be mentioned that at the relevant time the petitioner was the Minister of Water Resource Department in the State of Jharkhand and there is allegation against him also to have amassed huge property worth several crores of rupees through illegal means. In the vigilance case, the charge sheet had been submitted, in which, upon investigation it was found that by misusing his official position, the petitioner had acquired ill gotten assets, disproportionate to his known sources of income, to the tune of Rs. 1,75,15,918/ -.
(3.) IT further appears that a writ petition was filed being W.P.(PIL) No. 4700 of 2008 and pursuant to the order dated 4.8.2010 passed therein, the investigation of the case was entrusted to the C.B.I., whereupon R. C. Case No. 5(A)/2010/AHD -R was instituted against the petitioner and the other co -accused persons. The charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner in the said R. C. Case No. 5(A)/2010/AHD -R also, only with respect to the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and it was found upon the investigation that the petitioner had acquired the ill gotten assets, disproportionate of known source of the income, to the tune of Rs. 5,46,07,597/ -. It may be mentioned that so far as the allegation for the offences under the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the investigation in the R. C. Case No. 5(A)/2010/AHD -R is still going on.;