Interim Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
CT no. 21/2023
Directorate of Enforcement Vs.
M/s Raj Fibres Pvt. Ltd. & Others
ECIR no. ECIR/DLZO/302/2009
27.07.2023
Present: Sh. Arun Khatri, Spl. PP joined through VC whereas
Sh. Sahil Khurana, advocate appeared in the court
for ED.
Fresh complaint instituted by Directorate of Enforcement
through Assistant Director received by assignment. It be checked and
registered.
Special PP briefed the allegations against seven accused
persons, out of which accused no. 2 has now expired. As this
complaint has been lodged by a public servant in his official capacity
so there is no requirement to record the statement of the complainant
and other witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
On the basis of a complaint given by Assistant General
Manager of United Bank of India dated 04.06.2009, CBI registered
FIR on 08.06.2009 and filed chargesheet in the court on 17.11.2009.
The trial of the said case ended into a conviction on 11.08.2015 and all
the seven accused persons named in this complaint lodged by ED
were sentenced to imprisonment to the different terms as per details
given in para no. 1.5. No appeal has been filed by the accused persons
against their conviction as per knowledge of the counsel.
Accused no. 2, 3 & 4 were the Directors of accused no.1
Company. Accused no. 2 Sh. Ram Niwas Singhal has now expired so
the proceedings against him is liable to be abated.
According to the allegations of the complaint dated 04.06.2009
lodged on behalf of United Bank of India, accused no. 1 Company
availed credit facility of Rs. 295 Lakhs including the term loan for
-- 1 of 2 --
2
construction of shed and purchasing machinery worth Rs. 175 Lakhs
from M/s G.M. Engineering Company on the basis of forged
documents. A huge amount of Rs.171.48 Lakhs was deposited in the
bank account opened in the name of M/s G.M. Engineering Company
which was a fake account. In this process, accused no. 6 & 7 (two
bank officials) were also found involved. Infact, M/s G.M.
Engineering Company was belonging to some another person who had
no concern with any transaction with the accused no.1 Company. The
term loan/ funds obtained from the bank were misutilised by the
accused persons in conspiracy with each other. Most of the amount
was withdrawn in cash or was diverted to other accounts. ED was
able to recover a meager amount and immovable properties worth Rs.
8,96,724/- only were attached.
After considering the fact and circumstances mentioned in the
complaint especially the fact that in the CBI case, the accused persons
have been convicted. I find sufficient ground to take cognizance on
this complaint and summon all the accused persons except accused no.
2 (since deceased) for commission of offence under Section 4 of
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). As the accused no.1 is
a Company so it should be summoned through authorised officer.
Let all the accused except accused no. 2 be summoned for
14.08.2023. Proceedings against accused No. 2 is abated. The officer
who has filed this complaint in his official capacity is exempted from
personal appearance till he is specifically called and the Special PP is
permitted to prosecute the complaint on behalf of the ED.
(Ashwani Kumar Sarpal)
Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-08
RADC/ND: 27.07.2023
-- 2 of 2 --