Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: ED vs. Turbotech Energy Services International Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors.
RC ACI 2019 A0004/CBI/AC-I/ND
ECIR/06/DZ-CR/2019
CNR No. DLCT11-000370-2024
04.01.2025
Present: Sh. Simon Benjamin, Ld. SPP for ED (through VC)
with Advocate Sh. Aditya Jain (in person).
IO/AD Hemant Kumar (through VC).
Ld. SPP for ED heard partly. He requests for short
adjournment for placing on record some supporting case law
to substantiate his argument that even in absence of any
charge-sheet being filed by CBI for the Scheduled Offences,
the ED Court can still take cognizance of the offence against
the private individuals for the offence of money laundering
under PMLA.
However, it is pertinent to note here that present
complaint under Section 44/45 of PMLA 2002 is the
culmination of the ECIR/06/DZ-CR/2019 dated 01.08.2019,
which was registered pursuant to the FIR RCACI2019A0004
dated 29.07.2019 registered by CBI under Section 120-B IPC
and Section 7, 8 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act. The
offence of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC is alleged in
connection with the aforementioned offences of PC Act.
Except the offence of Section 8 of PC Act (as existed prior to
the amendment of 2018), all other offences of PC Act as
mentioned in the aforementioned FIR, are invocable only
against the public servants. Whereas, the aforementioned
FIR of Scheduled Offencens does not disclose the name of
any public servants. As per the FIR, M/s. Rolls Royce PLC and
M/s. Rolls Royce India Pvt. Ltd. had engaged commercial
advisors/agents in India for providing sales, logistic support,
local business expertise and strategic advice in connection
Page 1 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
with the purchase order directly placed on Rolls Royce by
HAL, GAIL and ONGC. It is alleged in the FIR that the
commission was illegally paid by M/s. Rolls Royce PLC and
M/s. Rolls Royce India Pvt. Ltd. to the agents/commercial
advisors namely M/s. Aashmore Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Turbotech
Energy Service International Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Infinity
Projects Pvt. Ltd. (arrayed in the present complaint as A-6, A-
1 and A-7 respectively), against the purchase orders placed
by HAL, GAIL and ONGC with M/s. Rolls Royce, as the same
was paid in violation of conditions of purchase order and
provisions of integrity pact.
However, there are no allegations of fraud or
cheating raised against M/s. Rolls Royce in the
aforementioned FIR of CBI, which is lodged only under
Section 120-B IPC and Section 7, 8 and 13(2) read with 13(1)
(d) of PC Act. It is a settled proposition of law that Section
120-B of IPC is not a standalone offence and cannot be used
to initiate PMLA proceedings unless the alleged criminal
conspiracy is related to the Scheduled Offence. The only
allegation with regard to illegal gratification contained in the
FIR is that, the part of the commission paid by M/s. Rolls
Royce to the proposed accused may have been paid as
kickbacks to unknown officials of HAL, ONGC and GAIL, who
were involved in the procurement process. However, till date
neither any charge-sheet has been filed by the CBI to show
the involvement of any public servants in the alleged
Scheduled Offences nor the present complaint discloses any
iota of material to show the involvement of any public
servant in the Scheduled Offences or in the offence of
money laundering.
As per the written note placed on record by the ED,
M/s. Rolls Royce had paid commission to the tune of
Rs.90,11,69,115/- to Ashok Patni (A-2) and his companies
Page 2 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
(A-1, A-6 and A-7) in violation of integrity pact, and said
amount of commission is the proceeds of crime in this case
because, part of said commission is suspected to have been
paid as kickbacks to unknown officials of HAL, ONGC and
GAIL involved in the process. However, in absence of any
material to show the involvement of any public servant in
indulging into any criminal misconduct in the grant of
purchase order to Rolls Royce, mere receipt of commission
amount in the account of the proposed accused will not
make said money as proceeds of crime. In this regard, it is
submitted on behalf of ED that investigation into the
predicate offences cannot be done by ED as the scope of ED
investigation is limited only to the proceeds of crime. He
requests some more time for placing on record some
supporting case law.
Considering the request of Ld. SPP for ED, the case
is however, adjourned for further arguments on
22.01.2025. Let the supporting case-law/judgments be filed
at least 07 days prior to the next date of hearing.
(Sunena Sharma)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI-20)
RACC : New Delhi/04.01.2025
Page 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --