- (1.) A complaint was lodged in the court of Vigilance Judge, Ranchi against the then Chief Minister, some of the Ministers as also against other persons alleging therein about the commission of the offences under Sections 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7, 10, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said complaint was forwarded to Vigilance Department, upon which a Vigilance case was registered against the aforesaid persons.
(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , on the basis of the allegation made in the Vigilance case, Enforcement Directorate lodged Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against them alleging therein that there has been reason to believe from the fact disclosed in the Vigilance case that the accused persons by hatching criminal conspiracy have acquired huge assets both in India and outside India by indulging themselves in criminal act under the Indian Penal Code and also under the Prevention of Corruption Act and as such, prima facie, materials are there to form an opinion that the offence of Money Laundering have been committed by Madhu Koda, the then Chief Minister and six other accused persons including Binod Kumar Sinha which is punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In course of investigation, it transpired that the petitioner, who owns a company named as M/s. Quantum Power tech has a close association with Binod Kumar Sinha, who is said to have invested proceeds of crime in different companies including M/s. Quantum Power tech. In that event, during investigation proceeding summon was issued to the petitioner for the purpose of his interrogation to which he responded immediately and gave statements on 17th, 18th and 21st December, 2009. The petitioner was again asked to appear on 30.6.2010 but the petitioner could not appear on that date for some valid reason and since the petitioner could not appear on that date, the Enforcement Directorate made the petitioner as an accused and got warrant of arrest issued under order dated 21.8.2010 passed by the Special Judge (PMLA), Ranchi. That order was challenged in Cr. M.P. No. 1209 of 2010 which was heard along with Cr. M. P. No. 1219 of 2010.
(3.) WHILE assailing the said order under which warrant of arrest had been issued, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had initially been cited as a witness in the investigation proceeding but since the petitioner could not appear on the date on which he had been called upon, the petitioner was put to the category of the accused and under this circumstance, he could not explain before the Enforcement Directorate about his innocence.;