ECIR 01/Pat/09/AD - moneylaundering.legalmoneylaundering.legal/admin/pdf/06Feb2017020240Directorate...

ECIR 01/Pat/09/AD 1

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDGE, PMLA-cum-C.B.I./A.C.B ,RANCHI

Present : Bal Krishan Tiwari,

Spl. Judge, PMLA-cum-C.B.I./A.C.B.

Ranchi

Dated, Ranchi the 30 th of January, 2017.

ECIR 01/Pat/09/AD

Directorate of Enforcement....……….…………….……..…………Complainant.

Versus

Hari Narayan Rai, aged about 55 years………………………………Accused.

U/s 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

For the E.D. :- Sri. Sushil Ranjan Das, Ld. Spl. P.P.

For the Accused :- Sri. Vidyut Chaurasia, Ld. Advocate.

:- Sri. Biren Poddar, Ld. Advocate.

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused namely Hari Narayan Rai faced trial for the charges

punishable u/s 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

I would like to mention necessary here that in the instant case the

accused Hari Narayan Rai is facing trial. But with regard to the allegations against the

accused Anosh Ekka and others separate charge sheet / complaint has been filed by the

Department of Enforcement. Accordingly separate trial is running against the accused

Anosh Ekka and others.

2. The brief fact of this case, are that on the basis of complaint received

from one Kumar Binod, Vigilance Department of Ranchi Police, Ranchi registered a

case vide FIR No. 26/2008 dt. 26.11.2008 for contravention of offence u/s 406, 409,

420, 423, 424, 465, 120B of the I.P.C. and section 11 and 13 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act against the accused Hari Narayan Rai, Anosh Ekka and other. It is

alleged that Hari Narayan Rai was elected from Jarmundi Legislative Assembly

Constituency in the year 2005 and sworn as Minister of Town and Tourism

ECIR 01/Pat/09/AD 2

Department, Government of Jharkhand. Hari Narayan Rai furnished the detail of his

property before the Election Commission and the detail of the same are mentioned

below.

Sl No. Details of cash/jewellery/property and other details Amount

1 Cash Rs. 10,000.00

2 Bank Deposit Rs. 5,000.00

3 Other (NSS, LIC etc.) Rs. 1,25,000.00

4 Land 5.5 Acres (agriculturalland)

5 Jewellery (in the name of his wife) Rs. 50,000.00

It is alleged that in February, 2005, when Hari Narayan Rai filed his

nomination for Assembly Election, his income was neither taxable nor did he had any

Permanent Account Number (PAN) issued by Income Tax Department.

It is further alleged that declared income of Hari Narayan Rai from the

period of March, 2005 to June, 2008 was following.

Sl. No Period Amount

1 March, 2002 to December, 2005 @ Rs. 39,000/- permonth

Rs. 3,90,000.00

2 January, 2006 to December, 2006 @ Rs. 39,000/- permonth

Rs. 4,68,000.00

3 January, 2007 to December, 2007 @ Rs. 39,000/- permonth

Rs. 4,68,000.00

4 January 2008 to March, 2008 @ Rs. 39,000/- per month Rs. 1,17,000.00

5 April, 2008 to May, 2008 @ Rs. 48,000/- per month Rs. 96,000.00

3. It is evident from the complaint that Hari Narayan Rai has fulfilled the

basic requirements of himself as well as other members of his family from his source

of income including agriculture and as per above declaration that Hari Narayan Rai

had the assets to the tune of RS. 15,39,000/- approx from his known sources of

income. But from his income other than from his legitimate sources, he by corrupt and

illegal means amassed huge assets worth of Rs. 30,18,00,000/- approx in the span of

this short period while holding the post of a public servant within the meaning of

Prevention of Corruption Act.

As per the complaint of complainant Kumar Binod the following

properties are owned by Hari Narayan Rai during the aforesaid period-

Sl No. Description of property Market value

1 4259 sq.ft. Land, 4 storied building at Harmu, Ranchi Rs. 1.40 crores

ECIR 01/Pat/09/AD 3

(under construction)

2 Dairy Farm in village Sonaraithri (1 acre land) Rs. 6.00 lacs

3 Expenses incurred in construction of the farm (shedlawns, pumps etc.)

Rs. 12.00 lacs

4 Estimated cost of milk giving cattle (70 cows &buffalos)

14.00 lacs

5 Pond construction (1 acre land worth Rs. 6 lakhexavation expenses around 10 lakhs)

16.00 lacs

6 Paternal house (new building in 1 acre land importedmarble, air conditioned rooms etc.)

Rs. 50.00 lacs

7 House (1 acre land worth Rs. 7 crores, 18 rooms a/crooms, imported marbles suit, 2 storied building) atBampass town, Deoghar

Rs. 20.00 crores

8 House and land (4866 sq.ft. Land worth Rs. 6 croresand building worth Rs. 1.50 crores) at Seth SurajmalJalan Road, Deoghar

Rs. 7.50 crores

9 6 Vehicles (Innova, Bolero, Marshall, Scorpio for allfamily members)

Rs. 30.00 lacs

4. That from the information and records made available by the Vigilance

Department of Ranchi Police, it is observed that Hari Narayan Rai has purchased and

acquired a number of immovable assets by way of corruption and misappropriation of

the money of the public at large and using the same for their personal benefits and

thereby did contravention in the provisions of Section 13 of P.C. Act. From above facts

it is observed that Hari Narayan Rai has contravened the provision of sections 406,

409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of IPC and section 11/13 of the P.C. Act and these

provisions are the scheduled offence under paragraph 1 and 5, both part A respectively

of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

5. It is alleged that S.P., Vigilance Bureau filed charge sheet dated

05.10.2009 in the designated Vigilance Court, Ranchi for committing offence u/s 406,

409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of the IPC and u/s 11 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused Hari Narayan Rai the

disproportionate assets owned by Hari Narayan Rai as mentioned in the charge sheet

of the tune of Rs 1,63,49,717/-. It includes movable and immovable properties as

mentioned in the charge sheet.

It is further alleged that the land measuring 4259 sq.ft. Situated at plot

no. H-35 at Harmu has been acquired by Hari Narayan Rai in his wife's name Smt.

Sushila Devi. However, at the time of purchase of land, it has been shown in the

document that Smt. Sushila Devi is the wife of one Ganesh Rai, but the fact is that said

Ganesh Rai is father of Smt. Sushila Devi and father-in-law of accused Hari Narayan

ECIR 01/Pat/09/AD 4

Rai. During the course of investigation the facts stated herein above were verified and

established. Investigation further reveals that Hari Narayan Rai was not an income tax

assesses prior to the year of 2005 and man of meager means. During his tenure of

Minister, Hari Narayan Rai by committing offence u/s 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465

and 120B of IPC and u/s 11 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, accumulated huge assets by corrupt and illegal means. In this regard Hari

Narayan Rai in his several statements recorded u/s 50 of P.M.L.A., 2002 on various

dates inter-alia stated that for the first time he was elected as M.L.A. In 2005 and

became Cabinet Minister of Jharkhand Government, when Sri. Arjun Munda and

Madhu Koda were Chief Minister of the State. Before he became M.L.A. there was no

movable asset in his name. His known source of income prior to his becoming M.L.A.

were only from contractor ship / agricultural activities. He further disclosed that there

was no other source of income other than salary and allowances from the Jharkhand

Government and dairy run jointly with family members. It is alleged that he has by

corrupt and illegal means, amassed huge assets as mentioned herein before which is

certainly proceeds of crime after committing scheduled offence as mentioned in

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002) and in order to project the

proceeds of crime as has been indicated herein above as untainted property. He has

started filing return in the name of his wife, brothers and brothers' wives respectively.

For the purpose thereof, they have obtained separate PAN numbers in the name of each

of his family members and his relatives and by showing fictitious sources of income

and projected his proceeds of crime as mentioned above as untainted property. The

details of same property is mentioned hereunder.

Name Relation Address PAN Source ofincome

I.T returnsfiled for theperiod

HariNarayan Rai

Self IrrigationInspectionBunglow,Doranda,Ranchi

AHOPR6758D Salary &BankInterest

2006-07 to2009-10

Sushila Devi Wife IrrigationInspectionBunglow,Doranda,Ranchi

AIFPD7904F Business 2006-07 to2009-10

SanjayKumar Rai

Brother Sonaraithari,Deoghar

AJNPR9272 Business 2006-07 to2008-09

SanjayKumar Rai


AAQHS8753L Business 2006-07 to2008-09

ECIR 01/Pat/09/AD 5

(HUF)

DevenarayanRay


AKBPR9062 Salary 2006-07 to2009-10

Kumar LataRay

Brother'swife

Sonaraithari,Deoghar

ALGPR5999C Business 2008-09 to2009-10

TuleshwarRai


AJNPR9274P Business 2008-09 to2009-10

FreshwaterRai (HUF)


AAHT9429Q Business 2008-09 to2009-10

It is further alleged that in order to further convert the proceeds of

crime as untainted property Hari Narayan Rai has also purchased several properties

after manipulating the real values of the same. He has also opened several bank

accounts in his name as well as in the name of his other family members and deposited

substantial amount in the said bank accounts projecting the same to be untainted

money, though as a matter of fact and as established in the investigation that the same

are the proceeds of crime committed by him as a Minister during the period he held

the post of Minister, Town and Tourism Development, Government of Jharkhand. The

accused Hari Narayan Rai when interrogated by the investigating officer, failed to

explain any other legal source of income for acquiring such properties. Thus, from the

facts mentioned herein above and the material collected during investigation, it is

established that Hari Narayan Rai has committed an offence defined u/s 3 of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which is punishable u/s 4 of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It is further alleged that Hari Narayan

Rai, however, appears to have committed the said offence with the connivance, aid and

assistance of other persons including his wife, brothers and brother's wife and other

relatives, who have knowingly and deliberately indulged themselves and have been a

party in the process and activity connected with the proceeds of crime and in the

process of projecting the same as untainted property. During investigation various

summons u/s 50 of the P.M.L.A were issued to them by investigating officer but they

failed to comply and thus investigation in respect of such persons could not be

completed. It is further alleged that the complainant craves leave of this court by filing

supplementary compliant with respect to such other persons as and when investigation

is completed with regard to such persons

6. That on 9.3.11 a supplementary complaint /charge sheet has been filed

against the accused Hari Narayan Rai. It is alleged that I.O. dated 4.9.02, I.O. of this

case was allowed to interrogate and record the statement of accused Hari Narayan Rai

ECIR 01/Pat/09/AD 6

and Hari Narayan Rai taken into judicial custody for 10 days and his statement were

recorded in the Patna Sub Zonal Office on 17.10.09, 19.10.09 to 23.10.09.

During the course of investigation conducted by the office of the

complainant, the following facts and circumstances emerged with led to filing this

complaint-

That Hari Narayan Rai was involved in corruption, he had purchased

immovable properties in his name, in his wife name and in the name of his relative and

in the name of his business concern and movable property in the shape of the banks

accounts from the earning which was generated by way of corruption and during

course of investigation conducted by the informant’s office, statement of the accused

persons and other persons were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 and the statement of

these persons, substantiate and corroborate the charge against the accused persons in

this complaint are elucidated below-

7. Statement of Hari Narayan Rai- Hari Narayan Rai during course of

interrogation avoided reply to specific question put by the officers and also adopted

the non-cooperative attitude. The statement of Sushila Devi wife of Hari Narayan Rai

was recorded. She inter-alia stated that she was engaged in the business of fish, milk

and construction of road through partnership firm M/s Mahamaya Construction since

1995 and she has earned total income from the business of fish about Rs. 2,13,667/-

and income from the business of milk of Rs. 1,87,417/- from 1994 to 2004. But she

did not produce any document in support of her claim of earning money from milk and

fish business. She never filed any Income Tax Return or paid any income tax during

this period. It is further disclosed that later on in 2008 she started the business of milk

in big way under M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm after taking loan from Santhal Pergana

Gramin Bank, from which she started earning Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- per month,

that in this business her brother-in-law Sanjay Kumar Rai was also involved and she

earned the money from the business and cows were given to her by her father and

father-in-law and other family members, after the marriage she was having Istridhan to

the tune of Rs. 2 lakh approx. She furnished the copies of her Income Tax Return for

financial year 2004-05 to 2007-08. Details are as under-

F/Y Income frombusiness in fish& milk

Income Tax Date offiling ofIncome TaxReturn

Deductionunder Chap-VI-A

DisposableIncome

2004-05 Rs. 76,900/- Rs. 4380/- Nov, 2005 ----- Rs. 72,520/-

2005-06 Rs. 2,66,400/- Rs. 4876/- 30.06.06 Rs. 1 lakh Rs. 1,66,620/-

2006-07 Rs. 2,79,971/- Rs. 9150/- 16.01.08 Rs. 1 lakh Rs.1,70,820/-

ECIR 01/Pat/09/AD 7

2007-08 Rs. 5,34,734/- Rs 87,191/- 29.03.09 Rs. 1 lakh Rs. 3,47,543/-

Thus, it is clear that Sushila Devi has filed Income Tax Return after last

date of filing of Income Tax Return except the financial year 2005-06 and when after

her husband Hari Narayan Rai became a Minister in the Government of Jharkhand.

During the interrogation her answer clearly shows that Sushila Devi was trying to

explain her unexplained investment as income from fish and milk business.

That M/s Mahamaya Construction was established in the year 2008 and

M/s Mahamaya Construction was involved in the construction of road against

government tender. That till 2008-09 her investment in Mahamaya Construction were

Rs. 62,51,200/-. That during 2008-09 capital of Rs. 23 lakh was withdrawn by her

during 2008-09. She received Rs. 7,89,598/- being share of profit. That in this way

M/s Mahamaya Construction, she was having investment of Rs. 47,40,798/-, she never

filed her Income Tax Return prior to financial year 2004-05. The Income Tax return of

financial year 2004-05 was filed in November, 2005 after her husband became

Minister in the Government of Jharkhand. She claimed that she invested Rs. 5,71,200/-

in M/s Mahamaya Construction in the year 2008 and during 2008-09 she invested Rs.

56,80,000/- in M/s Mahamaya Construction for which she took loan from the

following persons-

Name Amount Remarks

Sri Nandlal Rai, Sonaraithari Rs. 7,50,000/- The statement of Sri. Nandlal Rai wasrecorded but he could not explain thesources of fund/income

Sri. Dev Narayan Rai,Sonaraithari

Rs. 5,00,000/- The statement of Dev Narayan Raiwas recorded but he could not explainthe sources of fund/income

Smt. Lata Rai, Sonaraithari Rs. 5,00,000/- The statement of Smt. Lata Rai wasrecorded but he could not explain thesources of fund/income

M/s Lemos Cement, Khelari Rs. 20,00,000/ The statement of Sri. SunilRungta,authorized signatory of M/sLemos Cement, Ltd., (renamed asKhelari Cement Ltd.,) and Sri. SanjayRungta, Director of M/s KhelariCement Ltd., were recorded, but theycould not explain the sources of fund /income.

Total Rs. 37,50,000/-

8. It is further alleged that beside the above Rs. 37,50,000/- she invested

Rs. 5 lakh out of the income from Baba Basuki Dairy Farm and Rs. 14,30,000/- out of

ECIR 01/Pat/09/AD 8

the withdrawal from partnership firm M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm. That in 2008-09

her partnership dairy Farm earned total net income of Rs. 19 lakh and Sanjay Kumar

Rai has half share in the income. So this is factually incorrect as per the audited

account of M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm for financial year 2008-09. She withdraw Rs.

9,96,000/- from M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm. She was given salary of Rs. 96,000/-

during the year. The total sum comes to Rs. 10,92,000/- and not Rs. 14,30,000/- as

claimed by Sushila Devi. If the claim are taken as correct, her investment in M/s

Mahamaya Construction cannot be fully explained as out of total withdrawal from

Baba Basuki Dairy Farm. The Income Tax return for the financial year 2008-09, M/s

Mahamaya Construction has shown total income of Rs. 12,87,193/- and she stated that

M/s Mahamaya Construction has received the payment from government department

after deduction of TDS of Rs. 1,40,834/- + Rs. 1,61,942 + 1,56,493/- + Rs. 68,480/-.

When it was asked whether she had any document relating to income shown in her

Income Tax return for financial year 2004-05 to 2008-09 and about capital liabilities in

assets shown in the balance sheet of 31.3.07, 31.3.08 and 31.3.09 so submitted, she

stated she did not remember the details.

That in the immovable property she has a house under construction at

plot H-35, Harmu, P.S. Argora, Ranchi. She has spent Rs. 12,98,966/- to Rohit Singh

Rathor, Rs. 4,82,705/-, Harmu Housing Board, Rs. 52,000/- for the purchase of stamp,

Rs. 66,000/- for registry and other expenses, the total Rs. 19 lakh approx was spent

and registry of this plot took place on 5.3.08. She stated that this amount of Rs. 19 lakh

is from saving from her income up to financial year 2007-08 and from the loan amount

received from the following person till financial year 2007-08-

Sl. No. Name Amount Remarks

1. Sri. B.K. Tripathi Rs. 5,50,000/- Statement of Sri. B.K. Tripathi,partner of M/s Samridhi Travels wasrecorded but he could not explain thesources of fund/income.

2. Sri. N.P.Singh Rs 8,00,000/- Statement of Sri. N.P. Singh wasrecorded but he could not explain thesources of fund/income.

3. M/s Samridhi Travels Rs. 3,00,000/- Statement of Sri. B.K. Tripathi,Partner of M/s Samridhi Travels wasrecorded but he could not explain thesources of fund/income.

4. Other savings Rs. 2,50,000/- No source

Total Rs.19,00,000/-

--

ECIR 01/Pat/09/AD 9

9. During course of investigation statement of Nandlal Rai, Dev Narayan

Rai, Kumari Lata Rai, Sunil Rungta, Sanjay Rungta, Pradeep Rana, Anil Kumar

Mandal, Banwari Mandal, Parsuram Verma, Sita Ram Hazara, Birendra Kumar

Tripathi, Kumar Narendra Prasad Singh, Sanjay Kumar Rai, Anita Rai were recorded

u/s 50 of the PMLA, 2002. But from the statement of above persons it appears that

they are a men of very low means. This is not believable that a man of such low means

will earn and keep the huge money in cash in hand, give it to Sushila Devi as loan

(without any interest) without any collateral security. Explanation given by these

witnesses is nothing but afterthought. They are trying to somehow explain the

unexplained earnings (corruption money) of Hari Narayan Rai.

That during the course of investigation conducted by the complainant’s

office the following enquiry and valuation of immovable properties were made by a

government registered valuer. The details thereof are as follows-

Sl. No. Details of property Estimated investment/valuation

1. Sri. Hari Narayan Rai & Smt. Sushila Devi,H-35, Harmu Housing (H.I.G.), Ranchi,Jharkhand

Rs. 1,14,40,000/-

2. Sri. Sanjay Kumar Rai & Smt. SushilaDevi, Residential building at BampassTown, Suraj Mal Jalan, Road, Deoghar,Jharkhand.

Rs. 50,45,000/-

3. Sri. Hari Narayan Rai- Residential buildingat Sonaraithari, Dumka Road, Deoghar

Rs. 10,35,000/-

4. Sri. Hari Narayan Rai, Sri. Sanjay KumarRai & Smt. Sushila Devi- Baba BasukiDairy Farm, Sonaraithri, Dumka, Road,Deoghar, Jharkhand

Rs. 52,70,000/-

5. Sri. Hari Narayan Rai, Sri., Sanjay KumarRai & Smt. Sushila Devi – Fish pond atSonaraithari, Dumka, Road, Deoghar

Rs. 23,50,000/-

10. That during the course of investigation conducted by the complainant’s

office, it was revealed that Hari Narayan Rai had purchased the following different

immovable and movable properties in the shape of bank account in his name, in the

name of his relative and in his companies/business concern. Details of property as

given below-

Sl. No. Complete address of theproperty in whose nameit was purchased by ShriHari Narayan Rai

Date of thepurchase of theproperty &deed No.

Amount(In Rs.)

Remarks

ECIR 01/Pat/09/AD 10

1. Smt. Sushila Devi, D/oSri. Ganesh Rai Vill &P.O. Tarni, P.S Tongaru,Dist. Dumka, HIG, PlotNo. H/35, HarmuHousing Board, Harmu,Jharkhand State HousingBoard, Ranchi.

47 dated05.03.2008

19,00,000/- (approx)

The statement of Smt,.Sushila Devi wasrecorded but she failedto clarify thosesources of fund /income

2. Shri Sanjay Kumar Rai,s/o Sri. Nilkanth Rai,Vill, P.O. & P.S.Sonaraithari, Dist.Deoghar, Mauza-Shyamganj, No. 413,within DeogharMunicipal Ward No. 14,Jamabandi 20/3185, partof T.P. Plot No. 725, sub-plot No. 11, part Area2028 sq.ft.

1804 dated02.06.2006

1,66,000/- The statement of ShriSanjay Kumar Raiwas recorded but hefailed to clarify thesources offund/income

3. Shri Sanjay Kumar Rai,s/o Sri. Nilkanth Rai,Vill, P.O. & P.S.Sonaraithari, Dist.Deoghar, Mauza-Shyamganj, No. 413,within DeogharMunicipal Ward No. 14,Jamabandi 20/3185, partof T.P. Plot No. 725,part Area 1707 sq.ft.

2380 dated14.07.2006

1,87,500/- The statement of ShriSanjay Kumar Raiwas recorded but hefailed to clarify thesources offund/income

4 Shri Sanjay Kumar Rai,s/o Sri. Nilkanth Rai,Vill, P.O. & P.S.Sonaraithari, Dist.Deoghar, Mauza-Bariarbandhi, No. 400,within DeogharMunicipal Ward No. 17,j.b. no.21/3465, part ofPP Plot No. 1321, partArea 5005 sq.ft.

1286 dated21.04.2008

12,16,000/-

This plot of land wasgifted by Sh.Raghunath Rai,Maternal uncle of Sh.Sanjay Kr. Rai. Thestatement of ShriSanjay Kumar Raiwas recorded whereinhe has confirmed tohave received this gift

5 Shri Dev Narayan Rai,s/o Sri. Nilkanth Rai,Vill, P.O. & P.S.Sonaraithari, Dist.Deoghar, Mauza-Shyamganj, No. 413,within DeogharMunicipal Ward No. 14,Jamabandi 20/3185, partof T.P. Plot No. 725,part Area 495 sq.ft.

2301 dated14.07.2006

90,000/- The statement of ShriDev Narayan Rai wasrecorded but he didnot disclose about thepurchase of this plotof land and source offund/income.


6 Shri Dev Narayan Rai,s/o Sri. Nilkanth Rai,Vill, P.O. & P.S.Sonaraithari, Dist.Deoghar, Thana No. 413,Mauza- ShyamganjMohalla- Castor town,Area 1708 sq.ft., underold town, plan plot No.21, present town planplot No. 725, under J.B.No. 20/3185, DeogharMunicipal Ward No. 14,Holding No. 18, presentHolding no. 308, sub-plot No. 11.

Deed No. (notmentioned)dated22.08.2006.

1,87,500/- The statement of ShriDev Narayan Rai wasrecorded but he didnot clarify the sourcesof fund/income.

7 Smt. Anita Rai, W/o ShriArun Prasad Rai, NandPahar Road, P.S. & Distt.Deoghar, Mauza-Maheshmara, No. 250,within DeogharMunicipal Ward No. 10,J.B. No. 3532, part ofT.P. Plot no. 492, Area3600 sq.ft.

3188 dated24.10.2008

2,27,500/- The statement of AnitaRai was recorded butshe failed to clarifythe source offund/income

8. Smt. Anita Rai, W/o ShriArun Prasad Rai, NandPahar Road, P.S. & Distt.Deoghar, Thana No. 250,District- Deoghar,Mauza- Maheshmara,Area 3000 sq.ft., plot no.492, J.B. No. 3532.

Deed no. (notmentioned)dated29.01.2008

1,37,000/- The statement of AnitaRai was recorded butshe failed to clarifythe source offund/income

Details of Bank Accounts-

In case of Sri. Hari Narayan Rai.

Sl. No. Name &Address of theBank

Account No. Balance(in Rs.)

Remarks

1 Bank of India,Pandra Branch,Jharkhand

493910110000567 10,906 (Ason 5.2.10)

Inquiries were made withthe concerned bank whichrevealed that on number ofoccasions cash weredeposited in the bank A/cs.After analyzing the bankstatement, it is noticed thaton 19.7.07, Rs. 10,000/-was deposited in cash in theA/c.

2 Vananchal SB 3251 78,125 (As Inquiries were made with


Gramin Bank,Sonaraithari,Deoghar

on14.10.09)

the concerned bank whichrevealed that on number ofoccasions cash weredeposited in the bank A/cs.After analyzing the bankstatement, it is noticed thaton 04.04.06, Rs. 25,000/-was deposited in cash in theA/c.During the course ofinvestigation they could notprovide the source of fundswhich were deposited in thebank A/cs.

In case of Smt. Sushila Devi, W/o Sri. Hari Narayan Rai


Account No. Balance (inRs.)

Remarks

1 VananchalGramin Bank,Sonaraithari,Deoghar

8174 (jointly withSanjay Kr. Rai)

387 (As on02.10.09)

Inquiries were made withthe concerned banks whichrevealed that on number ofoccasions cash weredeposited in the bank A/cs.After analyzing the bankstatement, it is noticed thaton 15.02.08, Rs. 3,30,000/-were deposited in cash inthe A/c.During the course ofinvestigation they could notprovided the source offunds which were depositedin the bank A/cs.


14 5000 (As on04.07.09)

Inquiries were made withthe concerned banks whichrevealed that on number ofoccasions cash weredeposited in the bank A/cs.After analyzing the bankstatement, it is noticed thaton 24.01.08, Rs. 5,000/- &on 20.12.2008, Rs. 15,000/-were deposited in cash inthe A/c.During the course ofinvestigation they could notprovided the source offunds which were depositedin the bank A/cs.


3 HDFC Bank,Ranchi Club,Main Road,Ranchi

01501000043460 79.09 (As on01.10.09)

Inquiries were made withthe concerned banks whichrevealed that on number ofoccasions cash weredeposited in the bank A/cs.After analyzing the bankstatement, it is noticed thaton 17.07.07, Rs. 49,000/-,on31.08,07, Rs. 49,000/-,on 16.10.07 Rs. 49,000/-and on 24.12.07 Rs.4,60,000/- were depositedin cash in the A/c.During the course ofinvestigation they could notprovided the source offunds which were depositedin the bank A/cs.

In case of M/s Mahamaya Construction


Account No. Balance(in Rs.)

Remarks

1 Bank of India,Pandra Branch,Ranchi

493920110000047 18154As on29.09.08)

Inquiries were made with theconcerned banks whichrevealed that on number ofoccasions cash weredeposited in the bank A/cs.After analyzing the bankstatement, it is noticed thaton 09.05.08, Rs.3,50,000/-was deposited in cash in theA/c.During the course ofinvestigation they could notprovide the source of fundswhich were deposited in thebank A/cs.

2 Bank of India,Pandra Branch,Ranchi

493945110000655DBD A/c [FDR]

23,50,864/(As on22.03.2010)

This TDR of Rs. 20 lac wasmade out of cheque No.308427 issued from the A/cNo. 106010200006439 ofM/s Lemos Cements Ltd.,Ranchi maintained with Axisbank, Ranchi. This chequewas issued in the name ofSmt. Sushila Devi, who hasadmitted to have receivedthis amount as loan from M/sLemos Cement Ltd. Thissource of fund could not be


explained by the Director ofM/s Lemos Cement ltd., ShriSanjay Rungta. This amountwas taken as loan by Smt.Sushila Devi but nodocument/agreement wasmade in this context. Theutilization of this fund byinvesting it in TDR showsthat loan was not taken forany specific purpose and thisinvestment proves that thisfund belonged to Smt.Sushila Devi who launderedthis illegal money throughM/s Lemos Cement Ltd.,Ranchi.

In case of M/s Maa Gauri Construction


AccountNo.

Balance (in Rs.) Remarks


CA 13 17149(As on 29.01.09)

Enquiries were made with theconcerned banks whichrevealed that on number ofoccasions cash were depositedin the bank A/cs.After analyzing the bankstatement, it is noticed that on14.01.08, Rs. 5,000/- wasdeposited in ash in the A/c.During the course ofinvestigation they could notprovide the source of fundswhich were deposited in thebank A/cs.

11. The investigation conducted so far and the material discussed herein

above, it appears that Hari Narayan Rai, during his Minister ship in the Jharkhand

Government during the year 2005-2008 established construction company under the

name and style of M/s Mahamaya Construction Ltd. in the name of his wife Sushila

Devi and others, Maa Gauri Construction in the name of his brother Sanjay Kumar Rai

and others and also established M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm in the name of his wife

Sushila Devi and brother Sanjay Kumar Rai laundered huge money in the name of the

said company/ firm and projected them as untainted money. Accused Hari Narayan Rai


had also transacted huge amount with his wife Sushila Devi, brother Sanjay Kumar

Rai, Dev Narayan Rai, his sister Anita Devi and projected them as untainted money.

The details of the total amount invested as well as laundered in project is as untainted

money are depicted below-

Sl. No. Amount Investment details

1 Rs. 19,00,000/- In the name of Smt. Sushila Devi

2 Rs.15,69,500/- In the name of Sri. Sanjay Kumar Rai

3 Rs. 2,77,500/- In the name of Sri. Dev Narayan Rai

4 Rs. 3,64,500/- In the name of Smt. Anita Rai

5 Rs. 1,14,40,000/- In the name of himself and Smt. Sushila Devi, forconstruction of residential building at H-35, HarmuHousing (HIG), Ranchi, Jharkhand.

6 Rs. 50,45,000/- In the name of Sri. Sanjay Kumar Rai and Smt.Sushila Devi, for construction of residential buildingat Bampass town, Suraj Mal Jalan Road, Deoghar-Jharkhand

7 Rs. 10,35,000/- In the name of himself, for construction ofresidential building at Sonaraithari, Dumka Road,Deoghar, Jharkhand.

8 Rs. 52,70,000/- In the name of himself, Sri. Sanjay Kumar Rai andSmt. Sushila Devi, for investment in Baba BasukiDairy Farm, Sonaraithari, Dumka Road, Deoghar-Jharkhand.

9 Rs. 23,50,000/- In the name of himself, Sri Sanjay Kumar Rai andSmt. Sushila Devi, for investment in Fish pond atSonaraithari, Dumka Road, Deoghar, Jharkhand.

Total Rs. 4,33,77,000/-

12. It is further alleged that upon the above material it appears that Hari

Narayan Rai by committing a scheduled offence u/s 420, 423, 424, 120B of IPC and

section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act derived proceeds of crime amounting to

Rs. 4,33,77,000/- as Sushila Devi, Dev Narayan Rai, Sanjay Kumar Rai, Anita Rai

could not explain the source of income against which immovable properties acquired

by them. Further M/s Mahamaya Construction , M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm, M/s

Maa Gauri Construction also could not explain the source of income as well as huge

transaction so entered into. These facts were corroborated by documentary evidence

discussed herein above in the complaint. The immovable properties acquired by them

from the proceed of crime of Hari Narayan Rai and the same was projected as

untainted property. Under these circumstances and for the reasons detailed above, it

was prima facie evident that Hari Narayan Rai has committed offence u/s 3 of the said


Act thereby rendering the properties acquired by Sushila Devi, Sanjay Kumar Rai,

Dev Narayan Rai and Anita Devi for provisional attachment which was filed before

the adjudicating authority, New Delhi. Also complaint u/s 5 (5) of PMLA, 2007 dated

15.7.02 was filed before the adjudicating authority under PMLA who confirmed the

said provisional attachment order and the order of provisional attachment was

confirmed vide order dated 9.12.2010. It is further alleged that complainant reserves

the right to file further / supplementary complaint in view of the fact are unearthed

during the course of further investigation as stated herein before.

13. That on 17.9.16 further supplementary complaint was filed against the

accused alleging therein that during course of investigation conducted by the

Enforcement Directorate, under the provision of PMLA, 2002 the following facts and

circumstances emerged, which led to filing of this complaint. That the CBI vide its

charge sheet no. 01/12 dt. 16.1.2012 reflected calculation of assets of Hari Narayan

Rai found disproportionate to the known source of income which the accused cannot

satisfactorily account for is mentioned below.

1 Assets at the beginning of check period Rs. 1,70,000/-

2 Assets at the beginning of check periodRs. 2,34,92,372/-

3 Income accrued during the check period Rs. 1,55,27,619/-

4 Expenditure incurred during check period Rs. 68,30,601/-

5 Asset disproportionate to the known source ofincome which the accused cannotsatisfactorily account for

Rs. 1,46,25,354/-

During course of statement u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 Hari Narayan Rai

did not cooperate in the investigation and avoided to provide the details of source for

the acquisition of the property in as much as stated “I do not remember”. In response

to the specific quarries which inter-alia shows that assets found disproportionate to the

known source of income of Hari Narayan Rai was proceed of crime illegally earned by

him during his tenure as minister of Jharkhand. It appears that during the year of 2005-

08 Hari Narayan Rai established construction company under the name of M/s

Mahamaya Construction Pvt. Ltd., in the name of his wife Sushila Devi and others,

M/s Maa Gauri Construction in the name of his brother Sanjay Kumar Rai and others

and also established M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm in the name of his wife Sushila Devi

and brother Sanjay Kumar Rai and laundered huge money in the name of said

company / firms and projected them as untainted money. Hari Narayan Rai had also

transacted huge amount of money with his wife Sushila Devi and brother Sanjay

Kumar Rai, Dev Narayan Rai and projected them as untainted money. The details of


the amount subject to present prosecution complaint invested as well as laundered and

projected it as untainted money are depicted below-

Sl. No. Amount Investment details

1 Rs. 59,92,720/- In the name of H.N. Rai

2 Rs. 12,00,000/- In the name of Sanjay Kumar Rai

3 Rs. 50,15,000/- In the name of Sanjay Kumar Rai for construction ofresidential building at Bampass town, Deoghar, Jharkhand

4 Rs. 10,35,000/- In the name of himself, for construction of residentialbuilding at Sonaraithari, Dumka Road, Deoghar,Jharkhand.

5 Rs. 31,70,000/- In the name of himself, Sanjay Kumar Rai and Smt.Sushila Devi, for investment in Baba Basuki Dairy Farm,Sonaraithari, Dumka Road, Deoghar, Jharkhand.

6 Rs. 23,50,000/- In the name of himself, Sanjay Kumar Rai & LateTuleshwar Rai for investment in Fish pond at Sonaraithari,Dumka Road, Deoghar, Jharkhand.

Total Rs. 1,87,62,720/-

Thus, it appears that Hari Narayan Rai by committing a schedule

offence u/s 420, 423, 424, 120B of IPC and section 13 of P.C. Act, derived proceed of

crime amounting to Rs. 1,87,62,720/- as Hari Narayan Rai, Sushila Devi and Sanjay

Kumar Rai, could not explain the source of income against which immovable

properties were acquired in their name. Further M/s Mahamaya Construction, Baba

Basuki Dairy Farm and M/s Maa Gauri Construction also could not explain the source

of income as huge transaction so entered into. The immovable properties acquired by

them from the proceed of crime of Hari Narayan Rai the same were projected as

untainted properties. Under the circumstances it was prima facie evident that Hari

Narayan Rai has committed offence u/s 3 of PMLA thereby rendering the properties

acquired by Hari Narayan Rai in his name and in the name of Sushila Devi, Sanjay

Kumar Rai and Tuleshwar Rai liable for confiscation by this court. Also a complained

u/s 5 (5) of PMLA, 2002 dt. 30.4.2015 was filed before the adjudicating authority u/s

PMLA to confirm the said provisional attachment order. The adjudicating authority

was pleased to confirm the said order of provisional order vide its order dt. 6.8.2015

and accused has committed an offence of money laundering as defined u/s 3 of the

PMLA, 2002 which is punishable u/s 4 of PMLA, 2002.

14. In this case prosecution has submitted altogether three charge sheets

against this accused for the offence punishable u/s 3/4 of the Prevention of Money


Laundering Act (PMLA). Accordingly, cognizance of this case is taken up u/s 3/4 of

Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

15. That on 19.11.2011 charge has been framed against the accused Hari

Narayan Rai u/s 4 of PMLA. Charge was read over and explained to the accused in

Hindi in which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

16. Statement of accused has been recorded on 3.10.2016 in which he

pleaded his innocence and no defence witness has been examined.

17. The only point arising out of this case for determination is whether the

prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts or

not?

F I N D I N G S

18. Prosecution has examined altogether 33 witnesses in support of this

case. They are as follows-

PWs Name of witnesses Documents proved/Remark

1 Chandradhud Prasad Singh Ext. 1to 1/3, 2 to 2/7, 3 to 3/3 and4 to 4/1

2 Shiv Prasad Rai Jojowa Ext. 5 to 5/6, 6 to 6/1, 7 to 7/4 and Ext. 8.

3 Suman Kumar Sadhu Ext. 1/8 to 1/14 and statement u/s 50 ofPMLA is Ext. 9.

4 Ravi Bhushan Kumar Ext. 4/2, 1/15 and statement u/s 50 of PMLAis Ext. 9/1.

5 Sunil Rungta Director of M/s Lemos Cement Ltd. Issued acheque (Ext. 4/2) for the amount of Rs. 20lakh.

6 Birendra Kumar Tripathi Statement u/s 50 of PMLA is Ext. 9/3, heproved Ext. 1/6 to 1/19.

7 Pradeep Rana Statement u/s 50 of PMLA is Ext. 9/4.

8 Sita Ram Hajra Statement u/s 50 of PMLA is Ext. 9/6.

9 Kumar Narendra Prasad Singh Ext. 1/20 and Statement u/s 50 of PMLA isExt. 9/7

10 Anil Kumar Mandal Statement u/s 50 of PMLA is Ext. 9/8.

11 Sanjay Rungta Statement u/s 50 of PMLA is Ext. 9/9.

12 Abhiram Naik Ext. 10

13 Parsuram Verma Statement u/s 50 of PMLA is Ext. 9/10

14 Ashok Kumar Sinha Ext. 10/1 to 10/7

15 Banwari Mandal Statement u/s 50 of PMLA is Ext. 9/11.

16 Sanjay Kumar Rai Statement u/s 50 of PMLA is Ext. 9/12 andMark- 'X', Ext. 11.

17 Nand Lal Rai Ext. 11/1, Ext. B and Statement u/s 50 ofPMLA is Ext. 9/13

18 Anita Ray Statement u/s 50 of PMLA is Ext. 9/14,Mark- 'X/2' to ' X/7'.


19 Birendra Prasad Singh Ext. 12 to 12/4.

20 Kumari Lata Rai Statement u/s 50 of PMLA is Ext. 9/15 andExt. C, C/1 to C/2 and Ext. D

21 Sushila Devi Statement u/s 50 of PMLA is Ext. 9/16

22 Sukhdeo Pandit Statement u/s 50 of PMLA is Ext. 9/17 andMark 'Y/1'.

23 Deo Narayan Rai Statement u/s 50 of PMLA is Ext. 9/18 andmark Y/2 to Y/5.

24 Shiv Bhola Nath Sarkar Ext. 13, 13/1.

25 Dhirendra Nath Poddar Ext. 14, Ext. 15, Ext. 16 and Ext. 17.

26 Dr. Prabhakant Ext. 17/1

27 Rajiv Jha Ext. 18 to 18/2

28 Vishnu Dev Bhagat Ext. 19 to 19/4

29 Rewati Nandan Choudhary Advocate, Dumka, proved Ext. 20 to 20/2

30 Manoj Kumar Sah Notary Public at Dumka, proved Ext. 20/3.

31 Dr. Safi Ahmad Siddique Ext. 21 to 21/2 and Ext. 22.

32 Rang Nath Pandey Ext. 23 to 23/18, Ext. 24 to 24/18 and 25 to25/2.

33 Harish Chandra Ext. 26, 27 and Ext. 28.

19. On behalf of the prosecution following documents have been proved

which are as follows-

Ext. Nos Documents Remarks

Ext.1 Certified photocopy of opening form

cum specimen signature dated 7.1.2008

(document) (four pages)

In the name of Sushila Deviand Sanjay Kumar Rai

Ext. 1/1 Xerox copy of I. Card of Election

Commission of India (2 pages)

In the name of SanjayKumar Rai

Ext. 1/2 Xerox copy of I. Card of Election

Commission of India (1 page)

Sushila Devi

Ext. 1/3 Certified true copy of account opening

form dated 4.1.2008 (06 sheets)

Sushila Devi


form dated 17.1.2008 (12 sheets)

M/s Maa GauriConstruction, SanjayKumar Rai, Sukhdeo Pandit

Ext.1/5 Deed of partnership enclosure of Ext.

1/4- 6 sheets dated 14.12.2007

(photocopy)

Sanjay Kumar Rai and fourothers

Ext. 1/6 Certified copy of account opening form

dated 14.8.1996 (01 sheet)

Hari Narayan Rai


Ext. 1/7 C.C. of A/c opening form-cum-specimen

signature form along with affidavit of

dated 16.6.2005, resident proof of the

A/c holder of A/c No. 0150100004360.

Sushila Devi

Ext. 1/8 to

1/10

Xeroxed C.C. Of cash vouchers (three)

dated 17.7.07

Sushila Devi

Ext. 1/11 to

1/13

Statement of account of A/c No.

0150100004360, HDFC Bank

Sushila Devi

Ext.1/14 Address of the Account Holder of A/c

no. 0150100004360, HDFC Bank

Sushila Devi

Ext. 1/15 Statement of account of A/c No.

106010200006439, M/s Khelari Cement

Ltd., dated 30.4.08 given Rs. 20 lakhs

Sushila Devi

Ext. 1/16 Computerized Xerox statement of

account of A/c No. 01501330000343,

PW 6 Birendra KumarTripathi

Ext. 1/17 Computerized / Xerox copy of statement

of account of A/c No. 20276

Ext. 1/18 Xerox copy of statement of account of

A/c No. 493920110000017

M/s Samridhi Travels from21.3.07 to 12.3.09

Ext. 1/19 Xerox copy of computerized statement

of A/c No. 01502000009317

M/s Samridhi Travels from21.3.07 to 12.3.09

Ext. 1/20 Statement of account certified by P.W. 9

dated 20.4.10.

A/c holder K.N.P. Singh

Ext. 2 to 2/4 Certified photocopy of 5 deposit form.,

M/s Vananchal Gramin Bank,

Sonaraithari, 2007-09

Sushila Devi and SanjayKumar Rai

Ext. 2/5 to 2/6 2 certified photocopy of deposit form,

M/s Vananchal Gramin Bank,

Sonaraithari, 15.2.08 to 28.2.08

Sushila Devi and SanjayKumar Rai

Ext. 2/7 Certified copy of cash deposit form, M/s

Vananchal Gramin Bank dated 4.9.08

Hari Narayan Rai

Ext 3 Statement of account no. 8174 (certified

true copy) one sheet dated 7.1.08

Sushila Devi, SanjayKumar Rai


form, M/s Vananchal Gramin Bank dated

14.1.08

Sushila Devi

Ext. 3/2 Certified copy of account opening form. M/s Maa GauriConstruction


Ext. 3/3 Certified copy of account No. 3251

opening form

Hari Narayan Rai

Ext. 4 Letter along with enclosure from M/s

Vananchal Gramin Bank addressed to

D.N. Poddar, Director, E.D. dated

11.12.09

Submission of requiredpapers

Ext. 4/1 Letter no. Govt/01/10-11 dated 16.4.10. Forwarding information

Ext. 4/2 Forwarding letter along with copy of

cheque dated 14.12.09 from Axis Bank,

Ranchi

D.N. Poddar, AssistantDirector, E.D.

Ext. 5 Certified copy of account opening form

cum specimen signature, A/c No.

493920110000017

Sushila Devi, M/sMahamaya Construction

Ext. 5/1 Certified copy of statement of account

from 17.4.08 to 29.9.08

M/s MahamayaConstruction

Ext. 5/2 Certified copy of cash deposit pay-in-

slip


Ext. 5/3 Certified copy of partnership of deed

dated 8.1.08, M/s Mahamaya

Construction

Sushila Devi andBishwanath Rai and others

Ext. 5/4 Certified copy of Power of Attorney

dated 28.4.08

Ext. 5/5 Certified copy of partnership declaration

letter.

Sushila Devi for M/sMahamaya Construction

Ext. 5/6 Certified copy PAN card information

letter


Ext. 6 Certified copy of statement of account

no. 493945110000655 dated 1.5.08-

6.4.10


Ext. 6/1 Certified copy of pay-in-slip dated

28.4.08


Ext. 7 Certified copy of A/c form dated

19.7.2007

Hari Narayan Rai andSushila Devi

Ext. 7/1 Certified copy of specimen signature,

Bank of India, A/c no.

493910110000567

Hari Narayan Rai andSushila Devi

Ext. 7/2 Certified copy of statement of A/c of Hari Narayan Rai


computer print from 18.7.07 to 6.4.10.

Ext. 7/3 Certified copy of pay-in-slip dated

19.7.2007

Hari Narayan Rai

Ext. 7/4 Certified copy of joint Hindu Family

letter dated 19.7.07

Hari Narayan Rai, SushilaDevi

Ext. 8 Forwarding letter dated 12.12.09 by

Branch Manager, Bank of India

D.N. Poddar, AssistantDirector, E.D.

Ext. 9 Forwarding letter dated 14.12.09 Suman Kumar Sadho,Branch Manager, HDFCBank

Ext. 9/1 Statement of P.W. 4 u/s 50 of PMLA,

2002

Ravi Bhushan Kumar,Branch Manager, Axis bank


2002.

Sunil Rungta, Prop. KhelariCement Ltd.


2002 dated 1/2/10.

Birendra Kumar Tripathi


2002 dated 2/2/10

Birendra Kumar Tripathi


2002

Pradeep Rana


2002

Sita Ram Hazara

Ext. 9/7 Written statement of P.W. 9 dated

20.4.10

K.N.P. Singh

Ext. 9/8 Statement of P.W 10 u/s 50 of PMLA,

2002

Anil Kumar Mandal


2002

Sanjay Rungta, Prop.Khelari Cement Ltd.


2002

Parash Ram Verma, villager

Ext. 9/11 Statement of P.W. 15 u/s 50 of PMLA Banwari Mandal, villager

Ext. 9/12 Statement of P.W. 16 u/s 50 of PMLA Sanjay Kumar Rai, brotherof Hari Narayan Rai


2002

Nandlal Rai, brother of HariNarayan Rai

Ext. 9/14 Statement of P.W. 18 Anita Rai u/s 50 of

PMLA dated 4.11.09 & 5.11.09

Anita Rai, sister of HariNarayan Rai

Ext. 9/15 Statement of P.W. 20 of two dates in nine

sheets u/s 50 of PML Act dated

Lata Rai, brother’s wife ofHari Narayan Rai


22.3.10 and 23.3.10.

Ext. 9/16 Statement of P.W. 21 in 43 sheets

recorded on five different dated u/s 50

of PML Act

Sushila Devi wife ofaccused Hari Narayan Rai

Ext. 9/17 Statement of P.W. 22 in 48 sheets dated

21.12.09 u/s 50 of PMLA.

Sukhdeo Pandit, partner ofHari Narayan Rai

Ext. 9/18 Statement of P.W. 23 u/s 50 of PMLA in

five sheets.

Ext. 10 Deed of tripartite lease dated 4/3/08. Executed by Rohit Singh infavour of Sushila Devi,Harmu Housing Colony,Ranchi.

Ext. 10/1 Sale deed no. 2592 dated 22/8/06 Dev Narayan Rai for Rs.1,87,500/-

Ext. 10/2 Sale deed no. 161 dated 29/1/08 Anita Rai for Rs. 1,37,000/-

Ext. 10/3 Sale deed no. 1804 dated 2/6/06. Sanjay Kumar Rai for Rs.1,66,000/-

Ext. 10/4 Sale deed no. 2300 dated 14/7/06 Sanjay Kumar Rai for Rs.1,87,500/-

Ext. 10/5 Gift deed no. 1286 dated 21/4/08. Sanjay Kumar Rai for Rs.12,16,000

Ext. 10/6 Sale deed no. 2301 dated 14/7/06 Dev Narayan Rai for Rs.90,000/-

Ext. 10/7 Sale deed no. 3188 dated 24/10/08 Anita Rai for Rs. 2,27,500/-

Ext. 11 Application written by P.W. 16 to the

Assistant Director, E.D

By Sanjay Kumar Rai,details of documentprovided to E.D.

Ext. 11/1 Application written by P.W. 17 to the

Assistant Director, E.D., Patna along

with enclosure

Nandlal Rai to providedocument

Ext. 12 Valuation report of H-35, Harmu

Housing Colony (HIG), Ranchi, property

of Hari Narayan Rai and Smt.

Sushila Devi.

Valuation of Rs.1,14,40,000/-

Ext. 12/1 Valuation report of residential building at

Bampass Town, Surajmal Jalan,

Road, Deoghar

Sanjay Kumar Rai andSushila Devi, valuation ofRs. 50,45,000/-

Ext. 12/2 Valuation report of Baba Basuki Dairy

Farm at Sonaraithari, Deoghar

Valuation of Rs. 52,70,000/-

Ext. 12/3 Valuation report of Fish Pond at

Sonaraithari, Deoghar, Dumka Road,

Hari Narayan Rai, SushilaDevi and Sanjay KumarRai, valuation of Rs.


Deoghar 23,50,000/-

Ext. 12/4 Valuation report of residential building at

Sonaraithari, Deoghar, Dumka Road,

Deoghar.

Hari Narayan Rai-Valuation of Rs. 10,35,000/-

Ext. 13 Entire F.I.R. of Vigilance P.S. Case No.

26/08

Ext.13/1 Endorsement and signature of Junus

Kujur on page 16 of complaint petition

enclosed with FIR.

Ext. 14 E.C.I.R. No. 01/Pat/09/AD dated 4.9.09 1st complaint against HariNarayan Rai

Ext. 14/1 Countersign of P.W. 26 on Ext. 14 Prabhakant, DeputyDirector

Ext. 15 Entire complaint Case No. 01/2009 u/s

45 PMLA.

dt. 11.12.09

Ext. 15/1 Signature of Complainant P.W. 26 on

Ext. 15

Prabhakant, DeputyDirector

Ext. 16 All seven statement in twenty three (23

sheets)

Ext. 17 Supplementary complaint u/s 45 of

PMLA Dt. 9.3.11

Against Hari Narayan Rai

Ext. 17/1 Signature of P.W. 26 on Ext. 17.

Ext. 18 Invoice bearing no. NEX/42/06-07 of

NEXGEN SOLUTION

TECHNOLOGIES (P) Ltd

Hari Narayan Rai

Ext. 18/1 Copy of ledger A/c 1st April 2005 to 31

March 2006.

Money paid in cash

Ext. 18/2 Computer generated copy of ledger A/c

of final payment

Money paid in cash

Ext. 18/3 Forwarding letter dated 4/10/2013.

Ext. 19 Statement of salary and deduction in

year 2005-2006.

Hari Narayan Rai

Ext. 19/1 to

19/3

Statement of salary and deduction for

year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09.

Hari Narayan Rai

Ext. 19/4 Forwarding letter No. 401 of T.O

Ext. 20 Affidavit of Hari Narayan Rai submitted

during nomination for State Legislative

Assembly Election, 2005

Proved by Advocate, P.W.29


Ext. 20/1 Signature of Hari Narayan Rai on Ext.

20.


Ext. 20/2 to

20/3

Signature of P.W. 29 and P.W. 30 on Ext.

20.


Ext. 21 to

21/1

Invoice no. 2193 dated 9.1.2007 and

invoice no. 2400 dated 7/6/2007 of Bihar

Gun House, Doranda, Ranchi (carbon

copy).

Related to Hari NarayanRai, proved by P.W. 31

Ext. 21/2 Seizure memo dated 10.2.11. Proved by P.W. 31

Ext. 22 Letter written by Sri. S.A. Siddique,

proprietor of Bihar Gun House to Sri.

Harish Chandra.

Proved by P.W. 30

Ext. 23 to

23/18

Nineteen A/c opening forms of Post

Office

Sanjay Kumar Rai andSushila Devi, proved byP.W. 32

Ext. 24 to

24/8

Nineteen pay-in-slip of Post Office Sanjay Kumar Rai andSushila Devi, proved byP.W. 32

Ext. 25 to

25/2

Three forwarding letter written by Post

Master, Doranda Head Office

dated 7.9.12

Proved by P.W. 32.

Ext. 26 Attachment order dated 12.10.2010 Proved by P.W. 33

Ext. 27 Attachment of confirmation order dt.

6.8.15

Proved by P.W. 33

Ext. 28 Supplementary charge sheet- page 1 to

52.

Proved by P.W. 33

20. On behalf of prosecution documents have been marked for

identification which are as follows-

Mark- X – Xeroxed copy of detail of statement showing the payment of M/s Maa

Gauri Construction.

Mark – X/1 – Xeroxed copy Auditor's report for financial year 2008-09 of Maa Gauri

Construction and Baba Basuki Dairy Farm.

Mark – X/2 to X/5 – Photo copies of acknowledgment of ITR of Anita Rai (PW 18)

for assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Mark – X/6 and X/7 -Xeroxed copies of two sale deeds bearing no. 3188 dated

24.10.08 and 161 dated 29.11.08 in the name of Anita Rai.

Mark – X/8 – Xeroxed copy of Assignment letter bearing F. No. ECIR/01/Pat/09/AD

3786 dated 17/5/2010.


Mark – X/9 to X/11 – Xeroxed copies of (1) Voter Identity Card (2) PAN Card and

(3) Income Tax Return of P.W. 20.

21. On behalf of defence following documents have been exhibited.

Ext. A – Family Arrangement Paper.

Ext. B – Report of Circle Officer bearing Memo no. 172 dated 11.2.13.

Ext. C to C/2 – Three certified copies of Khatian.

Ext. D – Land possession certificate dated 22.8.13.

The prosecution has examined altogether 33 witnesses, now I would

like to discuss the statements of the prosecution witnesses which are-

22. P.W. 1 - Chandradhud Prasad Singh is posted in the Vananchal Gramin

Bank, Regional Office at Deoghar since 2008 as a District Coordination Officer. He

deposed before the court that on the request of Investigating Officer he searched

Saving Bank Account no. 8174 of Sushila Devi and Sanjay Kumar Rai and he proved

the application for account opening form as Ext. 1. and Voter I.D. Card of account

holder as Ext. 1/1 and 1/2. He further proved 5 pay-in-slip dated 5.2.2008, 20.2.2009,

23.6.2009, 17.8.2009 and 23.10.09 for Rs. 10,20,000/-, Rs. 68,259/-, Rs. 25,000/-, Rs.

25,107/- and Rs. 49,500/- respectively deposited in the account through transfer and he

proved it as Ext. 2 to 2/4. He further proved pay-in-slip dated 5.2.2008 of Rs. 30,000/-

and dated 28.2.2008 for Rs. 3,30,000/- as Ext. 2/5 and 2/6 and further deposed that A/c

no. 8174 was opened in the name of Sushila Devi and Sanjay Kumar Rai in Vananchal

Gramin Bank. He proved the statement of account as Ext. 3. He further deposed that a

current A/c no. 14 in the name of Sushila Devi of Vananchal Gramin Bank and proved

A/c opening form along with specimen signature which was duly attested by Branch

Manager as Ext. 1/3 and he proved statement of A/c no. 14 as Ext. 3/1. He further

deposed that another current account was opened in the Branch in the name of M/s

Maa Gauri Construction which was handled by Sanjay Kumar Rai and Sukhdeo

Pandit. He proved the account opening form as Ext. 1/4. He further proved the deed of

partnership produced by account holder which is a part of Ext. 1/4. He further proved

statement of current A/c no. 13 as Ext. 3/2 and saving A/c no. 3251 account opening

form related to Hari Narayan Rai is prepared by this witness as Ext. 1/6 and he proved

pay-in-slip dated 4.4.2006 for the amount of Rs. 25,000/- as Ext. 2/7. Statement of

account is prepared as Ext. 3/3. He deposed that all these documents were sent by him

to the investigating officer and he proved forwarding letter as Ext. 4 and other letter

dated 16.4.2010 is proved by this witness as Ext. 4/1.

During cross-examination this witness deposed that he has no personal

knowledge about these documents. He has given his evidence on the basis of

document. Thus, no vital question has been asked from this witness by the defence.


Thus, I find that this witness is an official witness. He has proved so many documents

and the statement of this witness deemed trustworthy, reliable and admissible in the

evidence.

23. P.W. 2- Shiv Prasad Rai Jojowa is Deputed Manager, Bank of India,

Khusro Branch, Ranchi. He deposed in the court that he was posted as a Senior Branch

Manager, Bank of India, Patna Branch from July, 2009 to July, 2010. At that time in

the said Branch a Current account was opened in the name of M/s. Mahamaya

Construction, Dumka on 27.4.2008 which was a partnership firm and its partners were

Sushila Devi, Biswanath Rai and Kamlesh Kumar Singh and this account was

conducted by Sushila Devi and A/c no. 39493920110000047. He proved account

opening form cum specimen signature card as Ext. 5 and statement of account as Ext.

5/1. Cash deposit pay-in-slip dated 9.5.2008 related the same account as Ext. 5/2 and

partnership deed which was filed by account holder is proved as Ext. 5/3. Copy of

power of attorney is proved as Ext. 5/4, partnership deed declaration letter as Ext. 5/5,

information letter relating to account of M/s. Mahamaya Construction with regard to

issuance of PAN card is proved as Ext. 5/6. He further deposed that A/c no.

493945110000655 was opened in the name of M/s Mahamaya Construction on the I.D.

of that account number. He proved computerized printed copy of statement of accounts

as Ext. 6. He further proved the pay-in-slip of this account an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs

was credited through this cheque, proved as Ext. 6/1. He further proved account

opening form along with specimen signature card of joint account in the name of Hari

Narayan Rai and Sushila Devi as Ext. 7 and Ext. 7/1. Computerized copy of statement

of account is proved as Ext. 7/2 and pay-in-slip of the account dated 19.7.2000 through

this pay-in-slip Rs. 10,000/- was deposited in the account and proved as Ext. 7/3. He

proved undivided letter dated 19.7.2007, undivided Hindu Family as Ext. 7/4. This

witness deposed that on the request of I.O. he sent these documents along with

forwarding letter to the I.O and he proved the forwarding letter as Ext. 8.

In cross-examination he deposed that in the Ext. 8 letter number of the

requisition of I.O is not mentioned and on Ext. 5 account holder's signature not

available on two pages and on Ext. 5/4 two partners have made their signatures and

these accounts were opened before him and he has deposed on the basis of documents.

Thus, no vital question has been asked from this witness by the defence. Thus, I find

that this witness is an official witness. He has proved so many documents and the

statement of this witness deemed trustworthy, reliable and admissible in the evidence.

24. P.W. 3 - Suman Kumar Sadhu deposed before the court that he was

posted in the Branch of HDFC Bank, Shopping Complex, Main Road, Ranchi from

July, 2009 to November, 2010 as a Branch Manager. He proved the A/c no.


0150100004360 in the name of Sushila Devi. He proved these two sheets of account as

Ext. 1/17. He further proved three cash deposit voucher as Ext. 1/8, 1/9 and 1/10. He

further proved statement of account of above exhibits as Ext. 1/11, 1/12 and 1/13. He

further proved copy of address of account holders which was received from the system

of the bank which is duly certified copy and proved as Ext. 1/14. He further proved his

statement which was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA as Ext. 9.

In cross-examination this witness deposed that he has not given any

certificate after seeing the original, he has certified the document. No vital question

has been asked from this witness by the defence. Thus, I find that this witness is an

official witness. He has proved so many documents and the statement of this witness

deemed trustworthy, reliable and admissible in the evidence.

25. P.W. 4 - Ravi Bhushan Kumar is Zonal Project Manager, ICICI Bank,

Kolkata. He deposed before the court that he was posted in the Axis Bank as Branch

Manager from June, 2006 to May, 2010. There was an account in the name of Lemon

Cement Ltd. which was converted in the name of Khelari Cement Ltd. as A/c no.

106010200006439 was remained at same number after alteration of the name. The

cheque no. 308427 dated 22.4.2008 was issued in favour of Sushila Devi from this

account of Rs. 20 lakhs. The cheque was issued by Sunil Rungta and Sanjay Rungta.

Through this cheque payment was made to Sushila Devi on 30.4.2008 in her account

in Bank of India, Pandra Branch. He further proved that on demand of I.O he handed

over the documents along with forwarding letter to the I.O and he proved the

forwarding letter as Ext. 4/2. He further proved statement of account, Khelari Cement

Ltd. as Ext. 1/15. He further proved his statement which was given during the

investigation u/s 50 of PMLA to the I.O as Ext. 9/1. No vital question has been asked

from this witness during cross-examination. Thus, statement of this witness are remain

intact and defence is failed to take contradiction from the statement of this witness.



evidence.

26. P.W. 5 - Sunil Rungta is a businessman. He deposed before the court

that he is a Director of M/s Rungta Project Ltd. which is situated at Bariatu, Ranchi. Its

registered address is situated at Manglam Building, Kolkata. R.S. Rungta, Sanjay

Rungta, Lalit Rungta and Praveen Rungta are the Directors. He deposed before the

court that he is the authorized signatory of M/s Lemon Cement Ltd and this company

has an account in Axis Bank. He is authorized signatory in the bank in the name of

Lemon Cement Ltd, was converted as M/s Khelari Cement Ltd in the year 2008. He

has deposed that he has issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs in the name of


Sushila Devi and he identified the previously exhibited document as 4/2. Thus, the

statement of this witness are appears trustworthy, reliable and admissible in the

evidence. This witness also destroyed the theory of loan of the defence.

27. P.W. 6 - Birendra Kumar Tripathi deposed before the court that he has

given his statement before E.D. which contains 6 pages. He has proved his statement

as Ext. 9/3. He further deposed that his statement was recorded on 1.2.10 and 2.2.10.

He proved his statement as Ext. 9/4. He has further deposed that he is the partner of

M/s Samridhi Travels. Beside him Ashok Tripathi is also a sleeping partner. He admits

his statement of account in HDFC Bank A/c no. 0343 and by this account he issued a

cheque no. 365049 dated 24.4.06 in favour of Sushila Devi for the amount of Rs. 3.50

lakh. He proved the statement of account as Ext. 1/6. He further deposed that he has

an account in Pandra Branch. From this account he issued a cheque on 26.1.08 in

favour of Sushila Devi for the amount of Rs. 2 lakh and 2 lakh was deposited in cash

in this account on 23.2.08. He proved the statement of account as Ext. 1/7. He further

proved second statement of account, Bank of India, Pandra Branch. He deposed that

he has issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 3 lakh in favour of Sushila Devi and this

money was detected from his account on 26.2.08 and on 26.2.08 Rs. 3 lakh was

deposited in this account. He proved statement of account as Ext. 1/18. He admits that

he issued cheque in lieu of cash deposit. He cannot say that the amount deposited in

the account are Rs. 3 lakh and Rs. 2.50 lakh and from where this money has come.

There was no loan agreement executed in between Sushila Devi and this witness. Prior

to this he has not given any loan to any person. He identified Hari Narayan Rai. He

further admits that A/c no. 9317 belong to HDFC Bank, belong to his firms and on

10.11.08 cash was credited to an amount of Rs. 5 lakh and on 14.11.08 he issued

cheque no. 6644 in the name of M/s Mahamaya Construction as a loan and he proved

the statement of account as Ext. 1/19. He admits that he know Hari Narayan Rai and

Sushila Devi prior to 8-9 years ago. Hari Narayan Rai was the Minister.

During cross-examination this witness stated that the loan given to

Sushila Devi was a friendly loan. All the cash deposited was done by him in his

account and the money was earning of his business and Hari Narayan Rai and his wife

have not given any money to him. Thus, this witness admits that he received cash and

issued cheque in favour of Sushila Devi wife of Hari Narayan Rai. Thus, the statement

of this witness are appears trustworthy, reliable and admissible in the evidence. This

witness also destroyed the theory of loan of the defence.

28. P.W. 7 -Pradeep Rana is a cultivator. He deposed in the court that in the

year 2007 he has not given any loan to Sushila Devi and he proved his statement

which was given before the E.D. as Ext. 9/4. Thereafter the witness was declared


hostile. During cross-examination question asked by the prosecution, he replied that he

has not shown his PAN card, Income Tax Return and document related to his bank

account to the I.O. On the dictation of I.O he he has written that he has not any PAN

card, Income Tax Return and bank account. He has further written that he is giving

statement voluntarily. He has not made any complaint before any authority with regard

that his statement was forcefully obtained by I.O. He denied the suggestion of the

prosecution that he is speaking lie to save the skin of accused. In para 12 of his cross-

examination he deposed that he has not given money to the wife of Hari Narayan Rai

to purchase the land. He has given money to Bharti Chatterjee at the time of payment.

The wife of Hari Narayan Rai was present there. The wife of Hari Narayan Rai was

along with him because she was wife of an MLA. So there is a less chance of cheating

. In para 13 he deposed that he has no relation to the accused or his wife about any

money giving and taking. Thus, this witness deposed that he has not given any loan to

Sushila Devi. Thus, the statement of this witness are appears trustworthy, reliable and

admissible in the evidence. This witness also destroyed the theory of loan of the

defence.

29. P.W. 8 - Sita Ram Hajra deposed before this court that Hari Narayan

Rai is an MLA belong to his constituency. In February, 2007 he has given Rs. 2 lakh to

Sushila Devi to purchase the land. This money was to be paid to owner of the land

Bharti Chatterjee. Bharti Chatterjee admits that she has received the money. This

witness deposed that he has not given any loan to Sushila Devi land he proved his

statement which was recorded in the investigation by the I.O. of E.D. as Ext. 9/6.

In cross-examination he deposed that Rs. 2 lakh was given by him to

Sushila Devi, was money of his business. Thus, no vital question has been asked from

this witness in cross-examination. This witness stated that he has given money to

Sushila Devi to purchase the land from Bharti Chatterjee. Thus, the statement of this

witness are appears trustworthy, reliable and admissible in the evidence. This witness

also destroyed the theory of loan of the defence.

30. P.W. 9 -Kumar Narendra Prasad Singh is contractor. He deposed that he

is a Civil Contractor and he is proprietor of M/s K.N.P. Singh Firm. He deposed that

his firm has two accounts in Oriental Bank of Commerce. One saving account and

other current account. He has issued a cheque no. 914950 for the amount of Rs. 3 lakh

and second cheque no. 914943 for an amount of Rs. 5 lakh, was issued in the name of

Sushila Devi wife of Hari Narayan Rai. He further deposed that he issued both the

cheque after receiving cash from Hari Narayan Rai and this cheque amount was

deposited by him in his account on 23.2.08 and the cheque amount was encashed on

25.2.08 from this account. He proved this statement of account as Ext. 1/20. He further


deposed that Hari Narayan Rai always used to came on his medical shop where the

introduction developed. He further deposed that he has not given any money to Sushila

Devi as a loan. He further deposed that he has given statement at the office of E.D. u/s

50 of PMLA as Ext. 9/7.

During cross-examination no vital question has been asked from this

witness. Thus, defence is failed to take contradiction from the statement of this

witness. Thus, the statement of this witness are appears trustworthy, reliable and

admissible in the evidence. This witness also destroyed the theory of loan of the

defence.

31. P.W. 10 - Anil Kumar Mandal is businessman. He deposed that he has

paid Rs. 2,40,000/- to Bharti Chatterjee through Sushila Devi to purchase the land and

in his presence Sushila Devi make payment to Bharti Chatterjee. The money was paid

through Sushila Devi to Bharti Chatterjee because she was the wife of his MLA. There

is no chance of cheating. He deposed that he has not given any loan to Sushila Devi

wife of Hari Narayan Rai and on the summon, he appeared at the office of E.D. where

D.N. Poddar, I.O. Interrogated and he given his statement and he proved his statement

as Ext. 9/8.

During cross-examination he deposed that he has given money to

Sushila Devi from his savings and no vital question has been asked from this witness.

Thus, this witness stated that he has not given any loan to Sushila Devi. Thus, the



32. P.W. 11 - Sanjay Rungta is a businessman and Director of M/s

Khelari Cement Ltd., deposed that previously the name of this firm was M/s Lemos

Cement Ltd. R.S. Rungta and this witness is active Director. M/s Khelari Cement Ltd.

Maintained a current account in Axis Bank, Ranchi which is operated by him and his

brother Sunil Rungta. He further deposed that in the business of M/s Khelari Cement

Ltd. some raw material is always required like Klinckev slag (GB slag). In the year of

2008 he issued cheque in the name of Sushila Devi for an amount of Rs. 20 lakh to

obtain GB slag for her business and Sushila Devi is wife of Hari Narayan Rai. Cheque

was signed by his brother Sunil Rungta and he has identified sign of his brother and

this cheque was issued from the A/c no. 106010200006439 of M/s Khelari Cement

Ltd. of Axis Bank. In para 5 this witness deposed that GB slag was not supplied in

compliance of this money. Then a demand was made from Sushila Devi through

Tripathiji, then money was returned through cheques up to month of September, 2008

at different dates. He deposed that he has not given any money to Sushila Devi as a


loan or as an advance. This witness proved his statement which is given u/s 50 of

PMLA as Ext. 9/9.

In cross-examination this witness deposed that the money was given to

Sushila Devi as an advance to purchase slag. When the material was not supplied, she

has received her money and this money was given to her up to March, 2009 and

transaction of giving and taking of money was totally business purpose. Thus, the



33. P.W. 12 Abhiram Naik, Record Keeper of Registry Office, Ranchi. This

witness is an official witness. He proved deed no. 47 dated 5.3.08, book no. 1, Vol- 4,

p;age no. 197 to 214 related to lease deed of Sushila Devi and Rohit Singh Rathor as

Ext. 10. No vital question has been asked from this witness. Thus, I find that this

witness is an official witness. He has proved so many documents and the statement of

this witness deemed trustworthy, reliable and admissible in the evidence.

34. P.W. 13 - Parsuram Verma deposed before the court that he has given

his passbook related to A/c no. 2986, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Sonaraithari to the E.D.

He deposed that in the year 2007 he given money of RS 2 lakh to Sushila Devi to

purchase the land from Bharti Chatterjee and before this witness Sushila Devi paid the

amount to the Bharti Chatterjee. He has not an income tax payee nor he has any PAN

card. He further admits that he never given any loan to Sushila Devi or any other

person. He proved his statement given during the investigation as Ext. 9/10. He further

deposed that he know Sushila Devi since 1995. Since she was the wife of MLA.

In cross-examination he deposed that the money in cash was given by

him to Sushila Devi, beside this witness Pradeep Rana, Banwari, Sita Ram and Anil

also given money in cash to Sushila Devi to purchase the land. There was no

agreement executed between this witness and Sushila Devi. Thus, the statement of this

witness are appears trustworthy, reliable and admissible in the evidence. This witness

also destroyed the theory of loan of the defence.

35. P.W. 14 - Ashok Kumar Sinha, District Sub Registrar, deposed before

the court that he was posted as District Sub Registrar, Deoghar on 12.3.12 and Ajay

Kumar Hembram posted as Sub Registrar from 8.7.07 to 27.5.08. This witness stated

that through sale deed no. 2502 dated 22.8.06 a property was sold from reliable state in

favour of Dev Narayan Rai and consideration money was shown in this deed as Rs.

1,87,500/- and on this amount registration fee and stamp duty was paid. This sale deed

no. 2502 was registered at the office. It is mentioned of Volume NO. 64, page 16 to 29.

It is a part of his record which was kept in the office and he proved it as Ext. 10/1 and

this sale deed is relating to a land of Upendra Prasad, Raj Kishore executed in favour


of Anita Devi wife of Arun Rai and consideration amount of Rs. 1,37,000/- is

mentioned and on the same amount stamp duty and registration fee was paid. He

proved this Deed no. 161 dated 19.1.08 as Ext. 10/2. He proved sale deed no. 1286

dated 21.4.08 executed by reliable state in favour of Sanjay Kumar Rai. It is a gift

deed of land and according to valuation, Rs. 12,16,000/- is mentioned and stamp duty

and court fee / registration fee was paid on above valuation and he proved this deed as

Ext. 10/5. Sale deed no. 2301 dated 14.7.06 is executed by reliable state in favour of

Dev Narayan Rai for the consideration money of Rs. 90,000/- and stamp duty and

registration fee was paid and he proved it as Ext. 10/6. He further proved sale deed no.

3188 dated 24.10.08 executed by Geeta Devi in favour of Anita Rai for the value of

Rs. 2,27,500/- and deposed that stamp duty and registration fee was paid on the same

amount and proved it as Ext. 10/7. He further proved sale deed no. 1804 dated 2.6.06

executed by reliable state in favour of Sanjay Kumar Rai and consideration amount of

Rs. 1,66,000/- is mentioned and stamp duty and registration fee is paid on valuation

and it proved as Ext. 10/3. He further proved sale deed no. 2300 dated 24.7.06

executed from reliable state in favour of Sanjay Kumar Rai for the consideration

amount of Rs. 1,87,500/- and stamp duty or registration fee is paid on the same

amount and it proved as Ext. 10/4. He further deposed that all the sale deeds are

certified copy of true copy issued from his office for government purpose and all the

true copy was substituted in place of original sale deeds.

In cross-examination he deposed that all the sale deeds was executed

prior to his posting period. He has no personal knowledge with regard to these sale

deeds. Thus, I find that this witness is an official witness. He has proved so many

documents and the statement of this witness deemed trustworthy, reliable and

admissible in the evidence.

36. P.W. 15 – Banwari Mandal deposed before the court that on summon he

was appeared before the office of E.D. at Patna where he has given his statement and

proved Ext. 9/11. He deposed that he know to Sushila Devi and Hari Narayan Rai. In

the year 2007, he has given the money of Rs. 2,50,000/- to Sushila Devi to purchase

the land. The money was given by Sushila Devi to the land owner Bharti Chatterjee in

his presence. He further deposed that he has not given any loan to Sushila Devi or any

other person.

In cross-examination this witness deposed that likewise his any other

villages Pradeep Rana, Sita Ram Hazra, Anil Mandal and Parsuram Mahto given

money to Sushila Devi to purchase the land. The agreement was prepared before him

and fact of money was mentioned in the agreement. No vital question has been asked

from this witness. Thus, the statement of this witness are appears trustworthy, reliable


and admissible in the evidence. This witness also destroyed the theory of loan of the

defence.

37. P.W. 16 - Sanjay Kumar Rai is cultivator and businessman. This

witness is brother of Hari Narayan Rai. He deposed before the court that during the

investigation he received summon of E.D. and he appeared at the office of E.D. at

Patna in the year 2009-10. His statement was recorded by D.N. Poddar who asked the

question from him and he replied in written. He further deposed that some statement

was given by him to I.O. voluntarily and some under pressure. But he has not made

any complaint to any officer with officer with regard to this pressure. He deposed that

from the year 1993 he started the business of dairy farm, thereafter fisheries and he

also worked as a contractor and farming. Four cows were given by his father to him to

start dairy work. He has two ancestral ponds which were given by his father for the

purpose of fisheries and maintenance. He has some ancestral agricultural land.

According to the family settlement he has got 5.62 acre land in his share. In the year

1993 he earned Rs. 3000/- per month from dairy farm and he obtained money from

fisheries of Rs. 95,000/- to Rs. 1 lakh per year. At about Rs. 50,000/- he has paid to his

father because this was the condition that 50% money of profit was given to his father.

He has not maintained any books of account with regard to income and expense of the

business of fisheries. He deposed that third pond is belonged to his cousin late

Tuleshwar Rai. Tuleshwar Rai also paid 50% income obtained from this ponds of his

father. All the ponds which were available during the lifetime of his father were

ancestral. This witness stated that he has three brothers and one sister namely Dev

Narayan Rai, Hari Narayan Rai and Nandlal Rai and Hari Narayan Rai became MLA

in the year 2005 and thereafter he became a Minister in the State of Government of

Jharkhand. He further deposed that he has no knowledge what profit has obtained from

the contractor ship from the year of 1994 to 2006. He has given the personal diary to

E.D. but same was returned by the E.D and directed to deposit in the court. He further

deposed that in the year 2008 he opened a partnership firm in the name of M/s Maa

Gauri Construction. Beside this witness, Sukhdeo Pandit, Dilip Kumar, Ashok Kumar

and Ratnesh Kumar were the partners of this Firm. Share of percentage were also

fixed. They obtained tender from the Jharkhand Government from Gramin Vikash

Department. At that time Hari Narayan Rai was the Minister in the Government. In the

year 2008 M/s Maa Gauri Construction firm invested RS. 12 lakh. This money was

given by him from his house which was the earning of his work and given cash. From

the year 1995 to 2006 he earned Rs. 3 lakh and Rs. 3 lakh from contractor-ship and Rs.

3.50 lakh per year from agriculture income. Half of the agricultural income was paid

to his father. He deposed that during this period he has maintained the details of


income and expenses in his personal diary but this diary has not given by him to E.D

and the document which was handed over to the E.D was given under his sign in a list.

Prior to year 2005 wife of elder brothers, what business has been done, he cannot say.

But his wife is house wife. He further deposed that in the year 2006 first time he

purchased a land in Deoghar from Anand Jain at the value of Rs. 1,66,000/- and after

two months he further purchased the land from same plot from Navin Chandra Jain for

an amount of Rs. 1,87,500/- and his maternal uncle executed a gift deed in favour of

this witness in the year 2008. He deposed that both the land was purchased by this

witness by cash payment. First time he filed Income Tax Return for the financial year

2005-06 and 2006-07 dated 13.3.07. He further deposed that a work was allotted from

Gramin Development Department to the construction of road from Singni via

Bhogdhara Ushwaha road. For this work security money for an amount of Rs. 12 lakh

was credited by this witness from his house. He has not debited this amount from the

bank. The Road Development issued the tender at the time of filling the tender Rs.

8,70,000/- deposited as term deposit in the Post Office and receipt was annexed with

tender form and this amount of Rs. 8,70,000/- and Rs. 3,30,000/- was deposited as

cash from his house. He further deposed that he has not worked along with Sukhdeo

Pandit, Dilip Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Ratnesh Kumar prior to the existence of this

partnership firm. He further deposed that in the year 2008-09 the work allotted to him

for an amount of Rs. 2,40,00,000/-. He has worked in the amount of Rs. 42 lakh only

and all the money was debited by him. He had not remembered the accounts of this

transaction. What was the profit earned he cannot say. The partner can tell this fact. He

cannot say that during this work what was the number of technical or non-technical

person who has engaged in this work. M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm, a partnership firm

was opened in the year 2008. Sushila Devi wife of Hari Narayan Rai was another

partner. This Firm was established on his ancestral land. Rs. 6,80,000/- was expend in

the construction of this firm., During the year 2005 there was 4 to 5 cows only but at

now there are 25 cows and Rs. 5,62,000/- was expend on purchasing of these cows.

This witness stated that he has not remembered what income was obtained from

fisheries from the year of 2005 to 2010. In the year 2008 he obtained a loan of Rs. 20

lakh from Gramin Bank, Sonaraithari along with Sushila Devi. The relevant paper

related to the repayment of this loan is not available at this time but it was at his house.

He has not produced these documents before the E.D. at the time of relevant statement.

Dr. Ritlal Yadav appoint as a caretaker of the animals in the dairy farms and Rs.

2,000/- per month was paid to him and there were 4 other persons who have also

caretaker of these cows and about Rs. 3,600/- per month salary was paid to them. The

document related to expense in maintenance of cows were produced before the E.D.


but E.D. not received it. The product of dairy farm was supplied to the villagers. some

times it was supplied to Deoghar where he obtained money through cheque. The

housed purchased from the Nemi Chandra Jain in the year 2008. He has not make any

construction over the building, but he got building in a gift area about 1500 Sq.ft.

having an house. He has expend Rs. 5,54,000/- in the construction of this house in the

year 2008. Out of these money Rs. 4.5 lakh was expend from the loan taken from

Union Bank of India, Deoghar and rest money was expend by him from the money of

his house. The property which was gifted by maternal uncle to him is purchased in the

year 2005. At that time brother of this witness was elected as an MLA and became

Minister and this property is gifted to him. In the Income Tax return of M/s Maa Gauri

Construction, Rs. 6 lakh was shown as unsecured loan from Pankaj Kumar Sah, but he

does not know Pankaj Kumar Sah nor he has any introduction with him. This witness

proved his statement recorded before the I.O. D.N. Poddar at the office of E.D. as Ext.

9/2. He further identified the chart of payment, which was made at the office of

Executive Engineer, Deoghar. He further proved audit report of M/s Maa Gauri

Construction and M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm mark as ‘X/1’ and list of document is

proved as Ext. 11. M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm and M/s Maa Gauri Construction have

its their registered office separately at Sonaraithari. Pawan Kumar Sah and others were

the staffs of M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm and salary of Pawan Kumar Sah was Rs.

5,000/- per month. This witness in the para 62 of his examination-in-chief stated that

he has not know about Pawan Kumar Sah. Rs. 6 lakh was received as unsecured loan

from this Pawan Kumar Sah. But in para 71 he admits that Pawan Kumar Sah was his

staff of M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm.

During cross-examination the witness deposed that he engaged in the

business of fisheries and dairy since 1993 and he engaged in farming from 1994 and

he started contractor ship at block level since 1995. The land was given to his father on

condition that he will pay half share of income from ponds and he produced the

document of family settlement as Ext. A. He further deposed that from the business of

farming, fisheries, he earned Rs. 3.50 lakh per year in profit and Rs. 90,000/- to Rs.

95,000/- was earned till 2000. After the year of 2000 he earned Rs. 1.25 lakh to Rs.

1.30 lakh from fisheries and Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- earned from the contractor

ship. In the financial year 2008-09 income accrued to Rs. 18,53,311/- and he proved

the copy of estimate prepared for the house which was received from the gift as mark

‘Y’. Thus, this witness is the important witness. He is the brother of accused. He

deposed that he described the money invested in his name or loan taken in his name

etc. But he has not produced any documents related to businesses / dairy farm and it

appears that he is trying to explain the income without maintaining books of accounts


and the tenders were allotted to him when his brother Hari Narayan Rai became a

Minister of concerned Department.

38. P.W. 17 - Nand Lal Rai proved his written statement as Ext. 9/13 and he

further proved hand written and signed list which was handed over to the I.O. of E.D.

as Ext. 11/1. He deposed that since the year 2003 he is Para Teacher at Madhya

Vidhalaya, Sonaraithari and he was living in his Sasural at Rampur since 1995 where

he is maintaining the firm of his father-in-law. He further deposed that in the year 2004

to 2005 he obtained salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month and in the year 2004-05 he

received Rs. 2,000/- per month salary and in the year 2005 to 2007 it was fixed Rs.

3,500/-. Further from 2007 Rs. 4,500/- was obtained as salary. Now he is getting salary

of Rs. 5,500/- per month. He further deposed that he has no any bank account in any

bank. He has filing Income Tax return since 2007-08. He does not know about

Mahamaya Construction. He deposed that he has given Rs. 7.5 lakh as a loan to

Sushila Devi in cash. The cash was given from his house. This money was related to

the income of his father-in-law. He has no knowledge why Sushila Devi has demanded

the loan. No paper / agreement was prepared with regard to this giving and taking of

the loan and this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. This witness deposed

in para 12 that he has written in the statement that it was given without any pressure

and fear. He voluntarily given his statement. He denied the suggestion of the

prosecution.

During cross-examination he deposed that per year he received Rs. 6

lakh to 7 lakh from the profit of his farming. Answer with regard to question no. 8 was

given under the pressure of E.D. Sushila Devi has returned the money to him through

cheque. He has given the money to Sushila Devi from his savings. The money was

kept in the house for the purchase of seeds and other requirements and answer of

question 12 also given under the pressure of E.D. He proved the report of Circle

Inspector Sarwa related to land as Ext. B. Thus, this witness in the examination-in-

chief deposed that he has given his statement before the E.D. voluntarily and without

coercion. But in cross-examination he deposed that he given his statement under the

pressure of E.D. but he has not made any complaint with regard to this pressure any

where or any authority. So it appears that fact of pressure was given by the witness, to

save the skin of his brother Hari Narayan Rai. He admits that he has given Rs. 7.5 lakh

to Sushila Devi but he has not produced any document with regard to this family loan.

So it appears that this witness is concealing the real fact to save the skin of his brother.

39. P.W. 18- Anita Rai is sister of accused Hari Narayan Rai. She deposed

that she has given her statement before D.N. Poddar, I.O. at Patna which was recorded

by her husband. She proved her statement as Ext. 9/14. She further proved Income Tax


Return for the financial year 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 as mark ‘X/2’ and

‘X/3’. She further deposed that she engaged in the business of make-up of bride. But

she has no any degree or diploma with regard to cosmetic make-up. She earned Rs.

2,000/- for one make-up and she paid Rs. 500/- each to her staff Neelam Singh and

Ritu. She does not know that what material was used in this business and what money

was expend in one make-up, she has no knowledge about the bill books or about the

income and expenditure. She deposed that she has one bank account in HDFC Bank

but she has a PAN card. She deposed that on 24.10.08 she has purchased a land from

Geeta Devi, area 36 sq.ft. and she has paid Rs. 2,27,500/- and she further purchased a

land of 3000 sq.ft. on 29.1.08 from Upendra Singh for the value of Rs. 1,37,000/-.

Both the lands are situated at Deoghar and money was paid in cash. She identified the

photocopy of sale deed as Ext. ‘X/6’ and ‘X/7’. She further deposed that her husband

purchased a tractor in the year 2007 and a Centro car in the year 2008 in his name. But

she does not know about the value of these vehicles. She deposed that neither she nor

her husband given any loan to any person or obtained any loan from any person. She

deposed that the earning from the business was used to keep it her house but she

cannot say how much money was earned from business from the year 2005 to 2009.

Only ornaments of Rs. 18,000/- was given to her in her marriage, the orgnaments were

sold in the year 2008 for Rs. 1,50,000/-. She admitted that Hari Narayan Rai is her real

brother.

In the cross-examination she deposed that she has no knowledge about

Ritu Barbasia and Neelam where are they at that time. She deposed that after marriage

she has used to go her parental house where she received Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-

as “Sagun'. She received Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 22,000/- from her mother-in-law. She

deposed that she has given answer under the pressure of the E.D. This witness also

declared hostile. In para 45 she deposed that statement given by her in examination-in-

chief is given voluntarily. She admits that she has not made any complaint any where

with regard to given or written statement under the pressure of E.D. She denied the

suggestion of the prosecution. She deposed that it is false to say that two land was

purchased from the money which was given by her brother Hari Narayan Rai.

40. P.W. 19 - Birendra Prasad Singh is retired Registered Government

Valuer and Structure Designer. He deposed before the court that he is doing job of

valuer since many years and he has 20 years experience of the valuation. He has done

valuation of five properties of Hari Narayan Rai. He further deposed that one property

situated at H-35, Harmu Housing Colony, HIG, Ranchi, Jharkhand which is in the

name of Sushila Devi wife of Hari Narayan Rai. He done the valuation and examine

and after local inquiry, he prepared valuation report and mentioned the value of this


house as Rs. 1,14,40,000/-. This report is proved by this witness as Ext. 12. He further

deposed that residential building at Bampass Town, Suraj Mal Jalan Road, Deoghar, he

also done valuation of this property after visiting site and site inspection and local

inquiry, he valued the property to an amount of Rs. 50,45,000/- and proved his report

as Ext. 12/1. Valuation of 3rd property related to M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm, situated

at Sonaraithari, Deoghar was done which is related to Hari Narayan Rai, Sanjay

Kumar Rai and Sushila Devi. He done valuation after site inspection and local inquiry

and market after serving the market, he prepared report and he analysis the valuation

of the property as Rs. 52,70,000/- and he proved his report as Ext. 12/2. Fourthly he

done valuation of fish pond of Sonaraithari belonging to Hari Narayan Rai and Sushila

Devi and after inspection of property and making local inspection inquiry and as per

market value, he valued the properties to the Rs. 23,50,000/- and proved it as Ext.

12/3. Further he valued the residential property at Sonaraithari, Dumka Road, Deoghar

belonging to Hari Narayan Rai. He valued the property after site inspection, local

verification and as per market value, he prepared a report and along with dimension

plan and photographs, he valued the properties to the Rs. 10,35,000/- and he proved

this report as Ext. 12/4. He further deposed that in the Ext. 12 and 12/1, he mentioned

the cost of land but remaining exhibits properties he has only included the cost of the

construction. This witness was thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. This

witness deposed that he perform the valuation of the property on the request of

Enforcement Department. He further deposed that valuation of the different part of

India is different. He obtain schedule of the rates of the property related to Ranchi

before the valuation and rate of schedule is also applied in all the state. He further

deposed that rate of CPWD are applied in all over India. The papers related to property

was not available to him but he has details of the property. All the details / address

were provided to him by the E.D. He further deposed that at the identification of local

resident, he has visited the site and a staff of Hari Narayan Rai was also there who tell

about the property of Hari Narayan Rai and he made inspection of the premises in the

presence of that staff. He got measurement with the help of the staff and Hari Narayan

Rai. He has not given any notice to the owner of the property with regard to this

measurement. The fair market value is mentioned in his report. He has not mentioned

the wages in different heads in his report. There may be a difference in the rate of 10%

in the city Delhi and Ranchi with regard to building material and labour. He has not

mentioned the plot number in the column 7 of the report and he has not mentioned the

boundary in his report. A lot of question was asked form this witness during cross-

examination but defence failed to take contradiction from the statement of this witness

and this witness is really an independent witness. He has no enmity with anyone.


Thus, I find that this witness is an official witness. He has proved so many valuation

report and the statement of this witness deemed trustworthy, reliable and admissible in

the evidence.

41. P.W. 20- Kumari Lata Rai deposed before the court that she has

appeared before E.D. on the summon where her statement was recorded on her

dictation by Viveka Nand Mandal and she proved her statement as Ext. 9/5 and

signature of Viveka Nand Mandal also identified this witness. She deposed that she has

no any bank account and she does not know about Mahamaya Construction. She know

to Sushila Devi wife of Hari Narayan Rai. She deposed that she has given Rs. 5 lakh to

Sushila Devi in the year of 2008 in two installments except this she has neither given

any loan to any person nor obtain a loan from any person. This money was earning

from her farming and it was given as a cash to Sushila Devi. This witness has been

declared hostile. This witness denied the suggestion of the prosecution.

In cross-examination she deposed that she has filed Income Tax Return

for the financial year 2007-08 and 2008-09. She has given statement before the E.D.

that she has given a loan to Sushila Devi in April, 2008 but this was not recorded by

E.D. She deposed that she has earned Rs. 3 to 4 lakh from her farming per year. She

proved certified copy of Khatiyan C, C/1 and C/2 and land possession report as Ext. D.

This witness is the sister-in-law of accused Hari Narayan Rai. She deposed before the

court in examination-in-chief that she has given a loan to Sushila Devi for business but

she does not know about Mahamaya Construction. These facts are not appears that she

is speaking truly. It appears that she want to save the skin of her brother-in-law Hari

Narayan Rai.

42. P.W. 21- Sushila Devi, wife of Hari Narayan Rai, deposed in her

examination-in-chief that she is house wife. She deposed that she appeared at the

office of E.D. at Patna two times. Her statement was recorded by Manoj Kumar Baksi

on her dictation. She made signature over her statement and she proved her statement

as Ext. 9/16 and she deposed that she has given true statement before E.D. She

deposed that she has passport, PAN card. She deposed that she has no knowledge

about the business. What earning was received from business of fisheries and market.

She has not remembered that what amount of loan was obtained from 2005 to 2010.

She has obtained a loan from Lemos Cement, Khelari. She has not remembered how

money was received as a loan or this money was either in cash or cheque. She does not

know about the partners of fisheries. She has not remembered whether she has

purchased any land from 2005 to 2010 or any agreement was prepared with regard to

any land for the above period. She has no any other source of income except farming

and fisheries.


In cross-examination she deposed that she has made statement before

the E.D about business of fisheries, dairy farm and Mahamaya Construction and she

earned from these businesses and earning of fisheries as also kept in the house as a

cash. This witness has given statement in cross-examination which was not given in

the examination-in-chief and she submitted that she has supplied a list of document to

the E.D. with regard to her business, her purchase of land and earnings. She also

admits that in the year 1995 her father-in-law has given two cows to her for business

where she obtained money as saving of Rs. 800/- to 1,000/- only. In the year of 2008

she engaged in the business of M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm along with Sanjay Kumar

Rai (partner). In para 25 she deposed that she has made a repayment of loan of Rs. 20

lakhs to Lemos Cement, Khelari in cash in the year of 2009. She deposed that she has

not given any statement that this money was returned through cheque to Lemos

Cement, Khelari. From the perusal statement of this witness, it appears that she is the

wife of accused who is facing trial in this case and she is trying to conceal the facts

which was given in statement before E.D. as well as in the court today. So statement

given by the witness in examination-in-chief are remained intact and defence is not

succeed to make any contradiction from the statement.

43. P.W. 22 - Sukhdeo Pandit deposed before the court that he received

summon from the E.D. Office, Patna and met with D.N. Poddar and he has given his

written statement on 21.12.09. He identified his writing and signature along with D.N.

Poddar and proved it as Ext. 9/17. He deposed that his business is farming, contractor

ship and he is owner of crasher machine and he earned Rs. 30,000/- to 35,000/- per

year from farming and Rs. 42,000/- to 45,000/- saving from contractor ship and Rs.

30,000/- to 40,000/- profit from the mines. This witness is declared hostile on the

prayer of prosecution and he denied the suggestion of the prosecution.

In the para 11 of the cross-examination this witness deposed that

statement of Sushila Devi (Ext. 9/16) was recorded by him on 22.4.10 and at the time

of recording of statement Sushila Devi has supplied a list along with documents and he

proved the photocopy of these documents as mark ‘Y/1’. Thus, nothing was asked in

the cross-examination from this witness. He deposed that he has recorded the

statement of Sushila Devi on 22.4.10.

44. P.W. 23 - Deo Narayan Rai is brother of accused Hari Narayan Rai. He

deposed that he has given his written statement before E.D. and proved it as Ext. 9/18.

He is a Panchayat Sevak and receiving salary in the year 2010 as Rs. 7,500/-. since

2010 he has no any account in the bank and in the financial year 2004-05 and 2005-06

he submitted Income Tax Return in the Income Tax Office at Deoghar. He deposed that

he does not know about M/s Mahamaya Construction Firm. He deposed that he has


given Rs. 5 lakh as a loan to Sushila Devi except this he has not given any amount to

any person. There is no any agreement made with regard to this loan transaction. He

has 4.5 acre ancestral land, and a plot in custered town, Deoghar was purchased on

14.7.06 in Rs. 90,000/- and second plot was also purchased on 22.8.06 for the value of

Rs. 1,87,500/-. This witness was declared hostile and he denied the suggestion asked

by the prosecution but in para 16 he deposed that both these plots purchased by him

after becoming Minister of Hari Narayan Rai. These plots were purchased by him by

his own money. He deposed that he has income for Rs. 2 lakh to 3 lakh per year from

farming. He further identified the photocopy of Income Tax Return from 2005 to

2009-10 mark as ‘Y/2’ to ‘Y/5’. The money was given by him to Sushila Devi as a

loan. No agreement or written paper was prepared because Sushila Devi was the

member of family and this amount also shown by him in his Income Tax Return. He

further deposed that he has given statement before the E.D. under the pressure of E.D.

He admitted the fact of pond and deposed that there are three ponds among their

brothers in which one pond is maintained by Tuleshwar Rai and other two are

maintained by Sanjay Kumar Rai. Thus, this witness is also an important witness. He

has a small service and he has purchased two plots in Deoghar when accused was

become a Minister in the State of Jharkhand.

45. P.W. 24 - Shiv Bhola Nath Sarkar is retired S.P. He deposed before the

court that he was posted as Addl. S.P. during November, 2008 at Ranchi and a

Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26/2008 dated 26.11.2008 was registered u/s 406, 409, 420,

423, 424, 465 and 120B of IPC and section 11/13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act

r/w section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act. This case was registered by

Addl. S.P.-cum-O/C, Vigilance P.S. and he make an endorsement by Junus Kujur,

Addl. S.P., Vigilance. He proved the writing and signature of Junus Kujur on FIR as

Ext. 13 and he further proved annexures along with Ext. 13, complaint petition and he

proved the endorsement with regard to register the case and writing and signature of

Junus Kujur as Ext. 13/1. He deposed that investigation of the case was entrusted to

him and he has submitted charge sheet against Hari Narayan Rai and Anosh Ekka in

Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26/2008. No vital question has been asked in the cross-

examination from this witness. Thus, I find that this witness is an official witness. He

has proved so many documents and the statement of this witness deemed trustworthy,

reliable and admissible in the evidence.

46. P.W. 25 - Dhirendra Nath Poddar is retired Deputy Director, ED.,

Kolkata Zonal Office, Kolkata ( West Bengal). This witness deposed before the court

that he was posted at Patna Sub Zonal Office of Directorate Enforcement from August,

2008 to September, 2012. While he was posted at Patna in the post of Assistant


Director, on receiving telephonic information by Sri., Prabhakant, Deputy Director of

E.D. from Vigilance Bureau to the effect that on the basis of complaint filed by Sri.

Kumar Binod on 24.11.2008 in the court of Vigilance-cum-Additional Judicial

Commissioner, Ranchi u/s 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. against Hari Narayan Rai and others, an

FIR no. 26/2008 dated 26.11.2011 was registered for the commission of offence u/s

406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of IPC and section 11 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Hari Narayan Rai and Anosh Ekka. He

further deposed that on getting the said information he and Prabhakant, Deputy

Director, visited Ranchi in the office of Vigilance Department and collected the copy

of the FIR no. 26/2008 with complaint of Kumar Binod. From the said FIR it reveals

that Hari Narayan Rai was elected as Minister of Town Development and Tourism

Department, Govt. of Jharkhand Ranchi with effect from 2005 from Jarmundi

Legislative Assembly constituency in the year 2005. He declares details of his and his

wife’s property, before the Election commission at the time of Election which shows

that he has cash and bank deposit only of Rs., 9,000/- and others savings are Rs.,

1,25,000/-. His wife’s has jewellery of Rs. 50,000/- and landed property as 4.50 acre.

Hari Narayan Rai was arrested and remanded and sent to the judicial custody.

It is revealed that from the said complaint that Hari Narayan Rai either

in his own name or in his wife’s name or in the name of his relatives and companies /

business concern has purchased immovable property, vehicles and also deposited huge

amount in the different bank time to time from the earnings which was generated by

way of corruption or by way of illegal means during his tenure of Minister ship. On

the basis of said FIR and documents the Directorate of Enforcement, Sub Zonal

Office, Patna has filed ECIR/01/Pat/09/AD dated 4.9.2009 in the court of Vigilance

Court of Spl. Judge/PMLA, Ranchi under the PMLA, 2002 against Hari Narayan Rai

for commission of offence u/s 420, 423, 424 and 120B of IPC and section 13 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act which are the schedule offence under paragraph 1 and 5,

both of part B of the PMLA, 2002. He proved the said ECIR dated 4.9.2009 as Ext. 14.

He further deposed that on 4.9.2009 he being I.O. of E.D.. He interrogated Hari

Narayan Rai on 8.9.2009 in Hotwar Central Jail, Ranchi and his statement was

succeeded against him moves u/s 45 of PMLA. During the course of investigation

conducted by the officer of E.D., Patna, it reveals that Hari Narayan Rai was involved

in corruption and he has purchased property in his wife’s name, in the name of his

relative and in the name of his business concerns and movable properties in the shape

of bank account, which was generated by way of corruption during his Minister ship

with effect from 2005-08. It is also revealed that Hari Narayan Rai has charged of

having committed for provision of schedule offence of section 420, 423, 424, 120B of


IPC and section 13 of the P.C. Act. He further deposed that on the basis of

investigation, a joint compliant u/s 45 of PMLA, 2002 has been filed before the Spl.

Judge, PMLA. This is the said complaint filed u/s 45 of PMLA, 2002 jointly against

Hari Narayan Rai and Anosh Ekka under the signature of complainant Prabhakant,

Deputy Director / E.D. and under signature of this witness which is filed on 11.12.09

and proved it as Ext. 15. It is deposed that during the course of investigation statement

of 19 persons including Hari Narayan Rai was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA on different

dates and time and Hari Narayan Rai during the course of interrogation, avoided to

reply to the specific question to E.D. and adopted non-cooperative attitude. He further

deposed that statement of Sushila Devi was recorded on 22.12.09, 23.12.09, 2.4.10,

11.4.10 and 22.4.10. In her statement she inter-alia stated that she was housewife and

she having the education of Class-X and she has no technical knowledge of road

construction. She was engaged in business of fish and milk from 1995. Construction of

road through partnership namely Mahamaya Construction which is existed in the year

2008 while her husband Hari Narayan Rai was Minister of Jharkhand. She has also

stated that a total amount of Rs. 4,01,084/- from 1994-95 to 2004-05 was earned from

business of fish and milk but she did not produce any documentary evidence in

support of her claim. She never filed any I.T. returns and did not pay any Income Tax

Return during the period. She further stated that in 2008 she started business of milk

and fish in big way in the name of Baba Basuki Dairy Farm. In their business her

brother-n-law Sanjay Kumar Rai, brother of Hari Narayan Rai also involved.

Regarding capital investment in the business of fish and milk of Baba Basuki Dairy

Fish, she has stated that she does nor remember it date wise. It is further deposed that

Sushila Devi stated that her Income Tax Return for the financial year 2004-05, 2007-

08 was filed while her husband Hari Narayan Rai was Minister in the Govt. of

Jharkhand. It is seen from the I.T. returns that total amount of income Rs. 12 lakh was

earned. It is clear that being housewife she has earned huge money only after her

husband becoming Minister in the Govt. of Jharkhand. Balance sheet and capital

amount register in the amount show that Sushila Devi does not know anything in this

connection. This clearly show that Sushila Devi while trying to explain her

unexplained investment income from fish and milk business. She further deposed that

M/s Mahamaya Construction is established in the year 2008 under the partnership of

three persons beside her. M/s Mahamaya Construction was involved in the

construction of road against the government tender. Till 2008 investment in the

Mahamaya Construction were Rs. 62,51,200/-. She could not explain of the source of

fund of the said amount and Sushila Devi further investigated Rs. 5,65,000/- in

Mahamaya Construction during 2008-09 on which she took loan from three persons


namely Nandlal Rai, Rs. 7,50,000/- in cash, Rs. 5 lakh loan from Dev Narayan Rai and

Rs. 5 lakh as loan from Smt. Lata Rai as such and Rs. 20 lakh from Lemos Cement,

Khelari. Moreover, the three persons could not explain the source of fund in their

respective statements. M/s Lemos Cement, Khelari also could not explain the source

of fund. The total amount of loan was taken by Sushila Devi of Rs. 37,50,000/-. Beside

this Sushila Devi invested Rs. 50 lakh out of the income of M/s Baba Basuki Dairy

Farm and further Rs. 14,30,000/- she invested in M/s Mahamaya Construction in the

year 2008-09.

He further proved the statement recorded u/s 50 of the PMLA of Hari

Narayan Rai as Ext. 16. He further deposed that this is the factual in correct as per the

audit of M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm for the financial year 2008-09. She withdraw

Rs. 9,96,000/- from M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm in the financial year 2008-09. She

was given salary of Rs. 96,000/- during the year and total comes to Rs. 10,92,000/- not

Rs. 14,30,000/- as explained by Sushila Devi. I.T. Return for the financial year 2008-

09 Mahamaya Construction has shown total income of Rs. 12,87,193/-. Upon being

asked as to on what ground income has been shown and how much income tax of M/s

Mahamaya Construction has deposed. Sushila Devi stated that M/s Mahamaya

Construction has received the payment from Government departments. She does not

remember the details about the number of workers and engineers engaged in getting of

work done under Executive Engineer, Deoghar and Dumka and how much and when

payment were made to workers and engineers and what was the total expenditure and

profits on completing such work. Sushila Devi further stated that she has no technical

knowledge in road construction. She does not know about what ground paid up share

capital, capital of partners, secured loans, liability, total of balance sheet, cross turn

over, gross received, gross profits, interest paid, net profit or loss. Loss amount of M/s

Mahamaya Construction she does not remember. The details of over drafts of Rs.

18,60,611/-, car loan of Rs. 2,66,908/- from Bank of India, FDR of Rs.20 lakh with

Bank of India and TDR Rs. 6,31,620/- as shown in balance sheet as on 31.3.2009.

Sushila Devi further deposed that she does not know about the details of earning of Rs.

6,07,200/- as on 1.4.08 addition of Rs. 56,44,000/-, profit of Rs. 7,89,598/-, gross

capital of Rs. 7,04,07,898/-, less drawing of Rs. 23 lakh and closing balance of Rs.

47,40,789/- as on 31.3.09 as shown in the balance sheet of M/s Mahamaya

Construction.

Sushila Devi stated that Nandlal Rai is her younger brother-in-law from

shown she has taken loan of Rs. 7,50,000/- . Similarly Lata Rai is her elder sister-in-

law and wife of Dev Narayan Rai, brother of Hari Narayan Rai from whom she took

loan of Rs. 5 lakh in cash. Dev Narayan Rai is elder brother-in-law from whom she


took loan of Rs. 5,000/- in cash. She had not given any security for taking such loan

from them. She knew M/s Lemos Cement from she took loan of Rs. 20 lakhs through

Biswanath Rai of her partnership firm. From the balance sheet as on 31.3.09 submitted

by Sushila Devi during her statement, she had taken loan of Rs. 5,50,000/- from B.K.

Tripathi, Rs. 5 lakh, from Dev Narayan Rai, Rs. 5 lakh, from Lata Rai, Rs. 10 lakh

from M/s Lemos Cement, Rs. 3 lakh from M/s Samridhi Travels, Rs. 7,50,000/- from

Nandlal Rai, Rs. 2,40,000/- from Anil Kumar Mandal in cash, Rs. 2,50,000/- from

Banarsi Mandal in cash, Rs. 2 lakh from Pradeep Rana in cash, Rs. 2 lakh from

Parsuram Verma, Rs. 2 lakh from Sita Ram Hansda in cash and Rs. 8 lakh from K.N.P.

Singh. She returned Rs. 10 lakh through cheque to M/s Lemos Cement but in

statement, repayment of such loan, no evidence in support of the claim was produced

and no agreement was made for tracing such loan and no any withdrawal security was

given to B.K. Tripathi, M/s Lemos Cement and M/s Samridhi Travels. He further

deposed that M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm was started in the year 2008-09 where the

partnership deeds were made on 1.2.2008. Sanjay Kumar Rai another partner who is

brother-in-law of Sushila Devi and Sanjay Kumar Rai is equal share in profit and loss

in M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm. She took loan of Rs. 20 lakh from Santhal Pargana

Gramin Bank for purchasing of 24 cows against Rs. 6 lakh. In this loan no security

money was deposited that the said bank gave loan on the guarantee of Dev Shanker

Mandal of Deoghar and Sukhdeo Pandit of Deoghar but she did not know both of

them. She does not know how the said bank loan of Rs. 20 lakh was repaid. Baba

Basuki Dairy Farm is situated on the land of her father-in-law Sri. Nilkant Rai but she

has no knowledge about the document relating to this land. Three persons were

engaged for looking after the cows and veterinary doctor is also engaged for looking

after their cows but she has no document related to salary given to them. She earned

net annual amount as income of Rs. 19 lakh from dairy Farm. But in the Income Tax

Returns of 2008-09 total annual income was shown as Rs. 18,53,611/-. The return was

filed on 29.8.09. when the Vigilance has filed the FIR against Hari Narayan Rai she

does not know nor she has any document relating to net annual income of Rs. 19 lakh.

Sushila Devi stated that there is others of high boundary wall of 4 sides of Baba

Basuki Dairy Farm and 5 katta land shad was constructed for keeping the cows and

this construction was made in year 2008 but she does not know about the total

expenditure thereon. Sushila Devi has the knowledge about to whom the milk produce

from the aforesaid dairy Farm used to there. Sushila Devi remembered details of

documents relating g to the income shown in her Income Tax Return for the financial

year 2004-05 to 2008-09 and capital liabilities and the assets, preparation as shown in

balance sheet dated 31.3.2007, 31.3.2008 and 31.3.2009. Sushila Devi has immovable


property in the form of house under construction at plot no. H-35, Harmu Housing,

P.S. Agrora, Ranchi. This plot of land is 4250 sq.ft. which was purchased from Rohit

Singh Rathor of Dhanbad through Harmu Housing Board and she paid Rs. 12,98,966/-

to Rohit Singh Rathor and Rs. 4,82,705/- to Harmu Housing Board and Rs. 52,000/-

for the purchase of stamp and Rs., 62,000/- for registry and other expenditures for

purchasing this plot- total amount of Rs. 90 lakh were spend. The registry of this plot

took place on 5.3.2008. She also stated that Rs. 19 lakh is from the saving of her

income up to financial year 2007-08 and from the loan amount received from three

persons of Rs. 5,50,000/- was taken from B.K. Tripathi, partners of M/s Samridhi

Travels and an amount of Rs. 8 lakh was taken as loan from K.N.P. Singh and further

Rs. 3 lakh was taken from M/s Samridhi Travels of which Sri. B.K. Tripathi is one of

the partners. Another Rs. 2.50 lakh from her savings but no source of fund of these

amounts were explained properly. Thus, the total amount of loan Rs. 19 lakh is

received by her through cheque. Papers, balance sheet for the financial year 2008-09

submitted during her statement. It appears that she had current liability of Rs.

11,21,905/- of M/s Kashish Developers Pvt. Ltd. She has further stated that M/s

Kashish Developers Pvt. Ltd. has to rs. 11,21,905/- from her as constructing her house

at Harmu as per statement dated 18.12.2007.

This witness has further deposed that statement of Nandlal Rai brother

of Hari Narayan Rai was recorded on 27.4.2010 u/s 50 of PMLA. He inter-alia stated

that he does not know M/s Mahamaya Construction. He know Sushila Devi wife of his

brother Hari Narayan Rai and he gave total Rs. 7,50,000/- in two installments in April

to Sushila Devi for the business. He does not know about business for which Sushila

Devi asked for the said loan. He does not enter into any agreement with Sushila Devi

for giving such loan in cash to her. The money are from his savings. Further he does

not remember about this Sushila Devi has not returned Rs. 7,50,000/-. He submitted

the Income Tax Return for the financial year 2007-08 and 2008-09 which shows that

the gross total income of two years only for Rs. 2,14,800/-. It further shows that

Income Tax Return was filed beyond the date of filing of Income Tax Return. Their

Income Tax Return have filed after Vigilance booked a case of corruption against Hari

Narayan Rai. From his statement it is clear that he is a man of very low means and this

is not believable for a man that such low means can give a loan of Rs. 7,50,000/- in

cash and this loan was given by him to Sushila Devi without any withdrawal

securities. It appears that the explanation given by Sushila Devi is nothing but after

thought. She tries to explain unexplained earning from corruption of money of Hari

Narayan Rai.


Statement of Dev Narayan Rai was recorded and he deposed that he

does not know M/s Mahamaya Construction but Sushila Devi is the wife of his

younger brother Hari Narayan Rai. He gave a loan of Rs. 5 lakh in cash to Sushila

Devi. He does not remember the date on which such loan of Rs. 5 lakh was given by

him to Sushila Devi. There was no any agreement for such loan. He does not

remember where from Rs. 5 lakh cash came to him. He filed Income Tax Return for

the financial year 2004-05 to 2008-09 which was filed much after the due date of

filing. The Income Tax Return shows that for the financial year 2004-05 the gross

income is negligible. It appears that gross total income for the five years are

approximately Rs. 2 lakh only. The date of filing of Income Tax Returns clearly

indicates that an attempt has been made to explain Rs. 5 lakh invested by Sushila Devi

in M/s Mahamaya Construction. He has purchased one plot of land measuring 1708

sq.ft. in custard town, Deoghar under sale deed dated 22.8.2006 for Rs. 1,87,500/-.

From his statement it is clear that he is a man of very low means and this is not

believable for a man that such low means can give a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash and

this loan was given by him to Sushila Devi without any withdrawal securities. It

appears that the explanation given by Sushila Devi is nothing but after thought. She

tries to explain unexplained earning from corruption of money of Hari Narayan Rai.

Statement of Lata Rai wife of Dev Narayan Rai was recorded and she

stated inter-alia that she is house wife and she does not know about M/s Mahamaya

Construction. She knows Smt. Sushila Devi, her sister-in-law and wife of Hari

Narayan Rai and gave loan of Rs. 5 lakh in cash to Sushila Devi in the year 2008 in

two installments. But she does not remember the date on which such loan was given to

Sushila Devi. No any agreement took place between them for such loan. She does not

remember that she has any detail knowledge about Rs. 5 lakh cash came to her. She

was filing Income Tax Return at Deoghar since 2005-06 where the gross total income

has been shown as only Rs. 65,350/- and Rs. 80,000/-. Income Tax Return was filed

much after the last date of filing of Income Tax Return. From her statement it is clear

that she is a woman of very low means and this is not believable for a woman that

such low means can give a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash and this loan was given by

her to Sushila Devi without any withdrawal securities. It appears that the explanation

given by Sushila Devi is nothing but after thought. She tries to explain unexplained

earning from corruption of money of Hari Narayan Rai.

Statement of Sunil Rungta of Pushpanjli Apartment of Bariatu Road,

Ranchi, was recorded and he stated inter-alia that he is a business man by profession

and Director of M/s Rungta Project Ltd., situated at Vikash Bhawan, Bariatu Road,

Ranchi. In 2008 he was also authorized signatory of M/s Lemos Cement Ltd. He was


not the Director of M/s Lemos Cement Ltd. During the statement he has shown the

letter dated 14.12.2009 of Axis Bank, Main Road, Ranchi and the copy of cheque

issued by M/s Lemos Cement Ltd. favouring Sushila Devi under his signature and put

his signature on both the documents as taken and having seen the same. The cheque

bearing no. 308427 dated 22.4.2008 was issued under his signature as authorized

signatory of account of M/s Lemos Cement Ltd. bearing no. 106010200006439

amounting to Rs. 20 lakh favouring Sushila Devi. He issued the said cheque in favour

of Sushila Devi on the instruction of her brother Sanjay Rungta. He does not look after

any activity of M/s Lemos Cement Ltd. He does not know Sushila Devi and her

husband Hari Narayan Rai and whether they are associated with business activity of

M/s Lemos Cement Ltd.

Statement of Sanjay Rungta was recorded and he stated inter-alia that

his brother Sunil Rungta is one of the authorized signatory of A/c No. 1060102406439

of M/s Lemos Cement Ltd maintained with Axis bank, Main Road near Elbert Ekka

Chowk, Ranchi. He does not know Hari Narayan Rai and Sushila Devi personally. M/s

Lemos Cement Ltd. issued a cheque bearing no. 308427 dated 22.4.2008 for Rs. 20

lakh favouring Sushila Devi of Axis Bank. The said cheque was issued to Sushila Devi

under the signature of his brother Sunil Rungta. This amount was given to Sushila

Devi as advance payment for the supply of BP slag (raw material for some production)

by her company M/s Mahamaya Construction. M/s Lemos Cement Ltd. and Sushila

Devi did not enter into any agreement for the supply of slag by her company but

Sushila Devi has not supplied any material to his company. He does not know that

Sushila Devi is a business woman. He does not know about the activity of M/s

Mahamaya Construction. He does not know about the partners, Directors of M/s

Mahamaya Construction. He does not remember where from the amount of Rs. 20

lakhs came to him against which his company has issued the cheque to same amount

to Sushila Devi. It is clear that it is not a payment showing businessman transaction

between M/s Lemos Cement Ltd. and Sushila Devi.

Statement of Pradeep Rana was recorded on 13.1.2010 and he inter-alia

stated that he worked as a painter and his monthly income is Rs. 7,000/- and his

monthly expenditure is Rs. 1500/-. He knows Sushila Devi. He has given a loan of Rs.

2 lakh in cash to Sushila Devi in the year 2007 but he does not remember in which

month this loan was given. But he has no document in this connection. He did not ask

Sushila Devi about any written agreement with respect to the aforesaid loan. He also

did not ask to Sushila Devi to return of Rs. 2 lakh. From his statement it is clear that he

is a man of very low means and this is not believable for a man that such low means

can give a loan of Rs. 2 lakh/- in cash and this loan was given by him to Sushila Devi


without any withdrawal securities. It appears that the explanation given by Sushila

Devi is nothing but after thought. She tries to explain unexplained earning from

corruption of money of Hari Narayan Rai.

Statement of Anil Kumar Mandal was recorded and he deposed that he

has a small stationery shop and his monthly income is Rs. 9,000/- and monthly

expenditure is Rs. 4,000/-. He gave Rs. 2,40,000/- to Sushila Devi for purchase of land

in cash and he has no any document in this regard. He has not asked to Sushila Devi to

return the said amount of loan. From his statement it is clear that he is a man of very

low means and this is not believable for a man that such low means can give a loan of

Rs. 2,40,000/- in cash and this loan was given by him to Sushila Devi without any

withdrawal securities. It appears that the explanation given by Sushila Devi is nothing

but after thought. She tries to explain unexplained earning from corruption of money

of Hari Narayan Rai.

Statement of Banwari Mandal was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA and he

stated that he is a farmer by profession and he also involved in extraction of oil and

sell and his monthly income is Rs. 50,000/- and monthly expenditure is Rs. 5,000/-. He

knows Sushila Devi wife of MLA of Hari Narayan Rai. He gave Rs. 2,50,000 in cash

in the year 2007 to Sushila Devi as loan for purchasing property by her. He gave the

said loan to Sushila Devi from his earnings but he does not remember date and amount

of installments. He has no any document in this regard. He did not receive any receipt

against the such payment of loan. He has not received back the said amount. He has

not asked for the same. He has no such income to show that he could pay Income Tax

from his statement. It is clear that he is man of very low means and this is not

believable for a man that such low means can give a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash and

this loan was given by him to Sushila Devi without any withdrawal securities. It

appears that the explanation given by Sushila Devi is nothing but after thought. She

tries to explain unexplained earning from corruption of money of Hari Narayan Rai.

Statement of Parsuram Verma recorded on 14.1.2010, 28.1.2010 u/s 50

of PMLA and he stated inter-alia that he is a farmer by profession and he knows to

Sushila Devi wife of Hari Narayan Rai. He gave a loan of Rs. 2 lakh in cash in 4 to 5

installments before 15.4.2007 to Sushila Devi for the purchase of land as a partner as

per agreement. He submitted the copy of agreement. He does not remember how much

amount was given to Sushila Devi in the installment. He does not remember how

much amount in each installment was given to Sushila Devi. He does not have any

document relating to the payment of Rs. 2 lakh. He stated that Sushila Devi did not

give any receipt. This amount is the annual saving from the income from agriculture.

His annual income is Rs. 3 lakh, out of Rs. 60,000/- he spend. He has given year wise


annual saving from 2005 to 2009 approximately Rs. 6 lakh. In this regard no document

was submitted. These savings are based on approximation. He did not receive any

receipt from Sushila Devi and did not ask to return Rs. 2 lakh from Sushila Devi. He

has no such income to show that he could pay Income Tax. From his statement it is

clear that he is man of very low means and this is not believable for a man that such

low means can give a loan of Rs. 2 lakh in cash and this loan was given by him to

Sushila Devi without any withdrawal securities. It appears that the explanation given

by Sushila Devi is nothing but after thought. She tries to explain unexplained earning

from corruption of money of Hari Narayan Rai.

Statement of Sitaram Hansda was recorded on 13.1.2010 u/s 50 of

PMLA and he stated inter-alia that he is farmer by profession and his monthly income

of Rs. 8,000/- approximately and expenditure is Rs. 5,000/- approximately. He knows

to Sushila Devi wife of MLA of that area. He gave a loan of Rs. 2 lakh in cash in

February, 2007 to Sushila Devi. The said amount was savings from his earning. The

written agreement was made with Sushila Devi in respect of such transaction. He did

not receive any receipt for the payment of Rs. 2 lakh. He did not ask to Sushila Devi to

return this amount. He has no PAN card and he does not file Income Tax Return. From

the statement it is clear that he is man of very low means and this is not believable for

a man that such low means can give a loan of Rs. 2 lakh in cash and this loan was

given by him to Sushila Devi without any withdrawal securities. It appears that the

explanation given by Sushila Devi is nothing but after thought. She tries to explain

unexplained earning from corruption of money of Hari Narayan Rai.

Statement of Birendra Tiwari was recorded on 1.2.2010 and 2.2.2010

u/s 50 of PMLA and he inter-alia stated that one of the partners of M/s Samridhi

Travels, Tourism Industries Center, Birsa Bihar, Tourism Complex, Main Road, which

came into the existence of February, 2007. He deposed that he knows Sushila Devi and

Hari Narayan Rai since 2003. He knows that Sushila Devi is running a firm of M/s

Mahamaya Construction. But he does not know its exact address. He submitted

account statement of bank accounts. It appears from the statement of A/c No.

015013340343, Bank of India, Pandra Branch, Ranchi that through cheque no. 036504

dated 24.4.2006 his said account has been debited for an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-.

This cheque was issued in the name of Sushila Devi wife of Hari Narayan Rai as short

term loan. It appears that said Rs. 3,50,000/- has been debited in favour of Sushila

Devi out of cash deposited on the same amount on 22.4.2006. But he does not know

the source of said cash deposit. He further deposed that from the statement of account

of Rs. 2 lakh has been given in favour of Sushila Devi on 16.2.2006 vide cheque no.

68013. From his said account he stated that this Rs. 2 lakh was given to Sushila Devi


as a loan but source of fund, he does not know. It appears from the statement of A/c

no. 493920111401707, Bank of India, Pandra Branch, Ranchi, maintained by M/s

Samridhi Travels. From this account an amount of Rs. 3 lakh has been debited on

28.2.2008 vide cheque no. 797087 dated 28.2.2008 in favour of Sushila Devi. This

amount of Rs. 3 lakh was given to Sushila Devi as loan by firm M/s Samridhi Travels

but about the source of fund, he does not know. It also appears that the amount of Rs. 5

lakh has been debited in favour of M/s Mahamaya Construction on 14.11.08 vide

cheque no. 0576644. From the A/c no. 01502549317 of M/s. Samridhi Travels

maintained with HDFC Bank, Main Road, Ranchi, out of cash deposit of Rs. 5 lakh on

10.11.2008. This amount was also given to M/s Mahamaya Construction as a loan but

the source of cash deposit of Rs. 5 lakh is not known to him. He stated that no

agreement was made by him regarding total loan amount of Rs. 13,50,000/-. The said

loan was given without any security. It is clear that these amounts are nothing but

accommodation entries given to Sushila Devi and M/s Mahamaya Construction to

explain her ill-gotten money.

Statement of K.N.P. Singh was recorded on 20.4.2010 u/s 50 of the

PMLA and he inter-alia stated that he is a businessman and doing business through his

proprietorship firm M/s K.N.P. Singh, Khelari since 1993. He knows Sushila Devi

wife of Hari Narayan Rai since Hari Narayan Rai used to come his medicine shop

namely Medicare at Gopal Complex, Main Road, Ranchi for the purchase of the

medicine. He had heard from the fellow construction that Hari Narayan Rai has a firm

M/s Mahamaya Construction which is being run by Sushila Devi. He does not know

address of M/s Mahamaya Construction. He submitted that copy of statement of A/c

no. 03270210020990 for the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2009 maintained with

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ranchi. It appears from the statement of account vide

cheque no. 914950 and 914943 dated 25.2.08, the said account Rs. 3 lakh and Rs. 5

lakh has been debited respectively and those said two cheques were issued favouring

Sushila Devi wife of Hari Narayan Rai and these amounts were given as a loan to her.

The said amount was debited out of cash deposit of Rs. 8 lakh on 23.2.2008 by him in

the said account. He does not remember the source of said cash deposit of Rs. 8 lakh.

He did not enter into any agreement with Sushila Devi for such payment of Rs. 8 lakh

and Sushila Devi has not returned the said amount to him. He has not recorded

regarding the cash deposit of Rs. 8 lakh of his account.

Statement of Sanjay Kumar Rai, brother of Hari Narayan Rai was

recorded on 21.12.2009, 1.4.2010, 2.4.2010 u/s 50 of PMLA. He inter-alia stated that

after passing matriculation examination, he engaged in dairy Farm, fisheries, work as

contractor and also involved in cultivation. He used to sell milk to Sukhdeo Sah and


Naresh Sah. He used to earn the profit of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the sell of milk

and he used to spend Rs. 2,000/- approximately per year on veterinary doctor but he

has no document relating to business. He further gave his two pones in which he was

doing the business of fish but he has no any document in this connection. He used to

spend Rs. 50,000/- and used to keep this money with him. In 2001 one pond was

repaired leading to increasing income to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the said fish

pond. He used to sell fish to Sri. Chandra Shekhar Kapri and Bishnu Kapri. He does

not remember as to when and how much fishes were sold out. He became contractor in

the local blocks Panchayat from 1995 to 2006. Later in 2008 he formed partnership

firm namely M/s Maa Gauri Construction and doing the contract works. Beside him

there are three other partners of M/s Maa Gauri Construction. M/s Maa Gauri

Construction is registered in Rural Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand on

28.1.2008 upon an agreement of M/s Maa Gauri Construction was signed on

14.12.2007 by all purpose. Sanjay Kumar Rai has major share of 40%. M/s Maa Gauri

Construction took part in tender invited by Works Division, Dumka of Rural Works

Department for the construction of roads and tender was allotted to them for doing its

work. He deposited Rs. 12 lakh in the year 2008 as security. It is fact that M/s Maa

Gauri Construction was framed when his brother Hari Narayan Rai was Minister in

Jharkhand Government. This amount of money of Rs. 12 lakh was from his saving

from 1995 to 2006. He did contract work for Rs. 12 lakh to Rs. 16 lakh from block

level. He does not remember in respect of document relating to contract works and

payment made to persons for the completion of the works. He earned Rs. 4,70,000/-

from the sale of milk from 1994 to 2006. He earned totaling to Rs. 6,75,000/- from sell

of fish from 1994 to 2000. He earned Rs. 1,25,000/- from contract work from 1995 to

2006. He further earned Rs. 2 lakh from agriculture from 1994 to 2006. But he does

not have any documents relating to the business. He submitted during his statement,

certificate of term deposit of Rs. 8,70,000/- of Dumka Post Office at this time of

deposited tender on 13.1.2008. He further submitted that certificate of term deposit Rs.

3,30,000/- of Dumka Post Office at the time of inviting into agreement between M/s

Maa Gauri Construction and Executive Engineer, Dumka. He submitted Income Tax

return for the year 2005 of M/s Maa Gauri Construction. It was shows gross total

income of Rs. 3,00,190/- and audit report for the year 2008-09 submitted by M/s Maa

Gauri Construction. He has no any document relating to details of entries of the

unsecured loan of Rs. 6 lakh from Pankaj Kumar Sah and partners capital of Rs.

18,27,903/- as on 31.3.2009. He does not know Pankaj Kumar Sah. This witness

further deposed that Sanjay Kumar Rai has given his statement that he has shown from

the submitted balance sheet as on 31.3.2009 that the term deposit of Rs. 27,71,000/-,


fixed deposit of Rs. 6 lakh, security deposit of Rs. 2,14,120/- and TDS Rs. 95,926/-.

He stated that the partners capital of Rs. 15,71,000/- is of Sukhdeo Pandit, partner of

M/s Mahamaya Construction. About other entries he does not know. He submitted

Income Tax return for the year 2008-09 of M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm, gross total

income was shown as Rs. 18,53,611/-. About the immovable property Sanjay Kumar

Rai stated that plot no. 1322 area 5005 sq.ft. for Rs. 12,16,000/- was gifted to him by

the maternal uncle Raghunath Rai which was purchased by Raghunath Rai on

22.12.2005 by paying cash of Rs. 8 lakh and Hari Narayan Rai became Minister in the

year 2005. He got constructed house of 11.50 sq.ft. against the payment of Rs.

12,54,000/- and for repairing and painting of said house Rs. 4,50,000/- has been spent

which was the loan amount from United Bank of India, Deoghar. Another plot of land

about 2028 sq.ft. was purchased by him from Anant Jain of Kolkata against the

payment of Rs. 1,66,000/-. He purchased on the plot of land of 1707 sq.ft. by him from

Anant Jain of Kolkata against the payment of Rs. 1,87,500/-. He submitted the Income

Tax Return for the financial year 2005-06 to Income Tax Office, Deoghar for the first

time on 13.3.2006 which is much after the due date. He submitted the accounts of

income from fisheries and sell of milk from 2005-06, 2009-10 showing total amount

of Rs. 8 lakh approximately. He does not remember the details of the expenditure

incurred by milk production and fisheries during the said period. He does not

remember in respect of the documents relating to capital account and balance sheet of

the said period. He submitted the copy of Income Tax Return for the period of year

2005-06 to 2008-09, showing total income of Rs. 5 lakh approximately. The Income

Tax Returns were filed much after the due date after Hari Narayan Rai became

Minister in Jharkhand Government. The Income Tax Return of 2007-08 and 2008-09

were filed in 2009 after Vigilance booked Hari Narayan Rai in corruption case.

This witness has further deposed that he has recorded the statement of

Sukhdeo Pandit u/s 50 of the PML Act in which he did not disclose the complete

source of income that on 21.12.2009. He submitted copy of deed of partnership firm of

M/s Maa Gauri Construction and copy of balance sheet of 31.3.2009. Thereafter

further summons were issued to him for recording his statement but he did not appear.

Statement of Anita Rai was recorded on 4.11.2009 and 5.11.2009 u/s 50

of PML Act. She deposed that she is house wife and running Beauty Parlour in her

house. Though she has no certificate of degree for Beautician course. She running the

Beauty Parlour by hiring two ladies of Deoghar. She submitted Income Tax Return for

the year 2005-06 to 2008-09, showing total income of Rs. 5 lakh approximately.

Income Tax Return filed much beyond the due date and filed after Hari Narayan Rai

was booked by Vigilance Bureau on corruption charges. It is clearly shows that she is


trying to explain the ill-gotten money of Hari Narayan Rai. She did not give any

receipt to the customers and she did not maintain any cash book. She did not know

how much material prepared for the beautification purpose. She further involved in the

business of cattle fodder from her house. Through her maternal uncle these cattle

fodder was purchased from village. He maternal uncle died in the year 2009 and for

this she does not remember total expenditure etc. From the Income Tax Return of the

financial year 2008-09 she showed an amount of Rs. 1,45,800/- from the sell of her

ornaments and she does not remember as to whom these ornaments were sold. On

24.10.2008 she purchased a plot of land of 3600 sq.ft. against the payment of Rs.

2,27,500/- in cash. She further purchased a plot of land of 3000 sq. ft. on 29.1.2008

against the payment of Rs. 1,37,000/- in cash. She does not know wherefrom this

money came to her for purchasing the land.

This witness further deposed that during course of investigation, the

valuation of immovable properties were made by the Government Valuer Sri. B.K.

Singh, the residential house of Hari Narayan Rai and Sushila Devi as H-35, Harmu

Housing colony, Jharkhand, Ranchi and was valued at Rs. 1,14,40,000/-. The

residential building of Sanjay Kumar Rai and Sushila Devi at Bampass town, Suraj

Mal Jalan Road, Deoghar, valued at Rs. 50,45,000/-. The residential building of Hari

Narayan Rai of Sonaraithari, Dumka Road, Deoghar was valued at Rs. 10,35,000/-.

The property of M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm of Hari Narayan Rai, Sanjay Kumar Rai,

Sushila Devi at Sonaraithari, Dumka Road, Deoghar was valued at Rs. 52,70,000/-.,

The fish pond of Hari Narayan Rai, Sanjay Kumar Rai and Sushila Devi at

Sonaraithari, Dumka Road, Deoghar was evaluated at Rs. 23,50,000/-. The witness

further deposed that during investigation from the facts and circumstances of the case,

it appears that Hari Narayan Rai has purchased 8 immovable properties in the name of

Sushila Devi, Sanjay Kumar Rai, Dev Narayan Rai and Anita Rai during the period

from 2006to 2008 against the payment in cash. Hari Narayan Rai, Sushila Devi, M/s

Mahamaya Construction, M/s Maa Gauri Construction maintained different bank

accounts in various banks. The statement of the said accounts shows that in different

times cash deposits were made. The investigation further conducted so far and material

document available in the office of E.D., it appears that Hari Narayan Rai during his

Minister ship of the Government of Jharkhand in the year 2005 to 2008 established

M/s. Mahamaya Construction, M/s. Maa Gauri Construction in the name of his wife

Sushila Devi, his brother Sanjay Kumar Rai and others and also established that M/s

Baba Basuki Dairy Farm in the name of his wife Sushila Devi and his brother Sanjay

Kumar Rai and earned and laundered these money in the name of said firm and

companies and projected them as untainted money. Hari Narayan Rai has also


transferred huge amount with his wife Sushila Devi and with his brother Sanjay

Kumar Rai, Dev Narayan Rai and sister Anita Rai and projected it as untainted money.

He further deposed that the details of total amount invested as well as laundered and

projected it as untainted money as follows-

Name AmountSushila Devi Rs. 90 lakhSanjay Kumar Rai Rs. 15,69,500/-Dev Narayan Rai Rs. 2,77,500/-Anita Rai Rs. 3,64,500-Hari Narayan Rai and Sushila Devi Rs. 1,14,40,000/-

[Construction of residential building at H-35, Harmu Housing Colony, HIG, Ranchi]

Sanjay Kumar Rai & Sushila Devi Rs. 5,45,000/-

[Residential building at Bampass town, Deoghar]

Hari Narayan Rai Rs. 10,35,000/-

[Construction of residential building at Sonaraithari, Dumka Road, Deoghar]

Hari Narayan Rai, Sanjay Kumar Rai and

Sushila Devi

Rs. 52,70,000/-

[Investment at M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm, Deoghar]

Hari Narayan Rai, Sanjay Kumar Rai,

Sushila Devi

Rs. 23,50,000/-

[In fish pond, Sonaraithari, Dumka Road, Deoghar]

Total Rs. 4,43,77,000/-

He further deposed that on the basis of above findings and material available

on record it appears that Hari Narayan Rai by committing schedule offence u/s 420,

423, 424 and 120B of IPC and section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act derived

proceed of crime amounting to Rs. 4,43,77,000/- as Sushila Devi, Dev Narayan Rai,

Sanjay Kumar Rai, Anita Rai could not explain the source of money against which

immovable properties were acquired by them. Further M/s Mahamaya Construction,

M/s Maa Gauri Construction also could not explain the source of money as well as

huge transaction so incurred in which the immovable property were acquired in the

name of his wife and relatives from the proceed of crime of Hari Narayan Rai and

projected as untainted properties. Under the circumstances it was prima facie evident

that Hari Narayan Rai committed offence under the charges of laundering the property

acquired in the name of Sushila Devi, Sanjay Kumar Rai, Dev Narayan Rai and Anita

Devi for provisional attachment which was filed before the court executing authority,

New Delhi after coupled u/s 5 (5) of PMLA dated 15.7.2010 was filed before the said

authority to confirm the attachment order. The authority confirmed the said attachment

vide order dated 9.12.2010. This witness further deposed that after usual investigation


of supplementary complaint u/s 45 of PMLA against Hari Narayan Rai, was filed on

9.3.2011 before the Spl. Court of PMLA under the signature of the then Deputy

Director Sri. Prabhakant and under his signature and he proved this complaint as Ext.

17.

This witness deposed in the cross-examination that he has started

investigation in this case from 4.9.2009 and the ECIR is filed by Prabhakant. It bears

the signature of Prabhakant and also bear signature of this witness also. He deposed

that section 406, 409 and 465 of IPC is not schedule offence under PMLA, 2002 as

I.O. can file only ECIR for schedule offences. He further deposed that before the filing

of ECIR, neither he nor his Department made any preliminary inquiry whether the

accused has committed any offence under PMLA. On the basis of FIR of Vigilance

case, he has filed ECIR against the accused. The then Deputy Director Prabhakant got

information about the FIR of Vigilance Case against the accused. He further deposed

that he examined movable and immovable property, details of the property discussed

in supplementary complaint and in supplementary complaint quantum of proceed of

crime by which movable and immovable property was acquired and ascertained that

total proceed of crime is Rs. 4,33,77,000/-. He has investigated only schedule offence

against the accused u/s 420, 423, 424 and 120B of IPC and 13 of Prevention of

Corruption Act. It is correct that in column 3 of ECIR it is written that Vigilance

Department is investigating. He was authorized under the provision of PMLA to

investigation of this case. He has visited various places during the investigation like

Sub Registrar office, Ranchi, DTO, Ranchi, various banks at Ranchi and other places.

He cannot say that in any of the case this accused found guilty under the PMLA for

committing schedule offence. It is correct to say that entire property mentioned in

ECIR is based on the FIR of Vigilance Case, Ranchi. Neither he nor his Department

got an information by any person about the commission of crime of accused under

PMLA. There is no such provision in PMLA to file a joint ECIR against two persons

for committing crime where there is no connection between them. There is no

provision under PMLA to file joint complaint against two persons for committing

different offences ans specially when there is no any relationship between them. He

has not investigated separately for the offence punishable u/s 420, 423, 424, 120B of

the IPC and section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.. He has no knowledge that

Hari Narayan Rai became Minister in Government of Jharkhand with effect from

2005. So he cannot say the date of taking oath in the Minister of Government of

Jharkhand. He has not visited the office of Election Commissioner about the details

given by Hari Narayan Rai with respect to his property at the time of his nomination

and he has not obtained the copy of declaration of property filed by Hari Narayan Rai


at the time of nomination. He further deposed that no any person came to him to say

that he has paid illegal money to Hari Narayan Rai. This witness further deposed that

he and E.D. put questions to Hari Narayan Rai but he did not give answer. The specific

questions are not mentioned by him in complaint and supplementary complaint,

regarding the details of property and business of Hari Narayan Rai and Hari Narayan

Rai did not give answer the question put by him and E.D. He further deposed that he

has recorded the statement of 19 persons during investigation with the help of A.C.

Verma, Enforcement Officer. He further deposed that valuer submitted the report about

the market value of these properties. It is not correct to say that the fee paid by the

department to the valuer on the basis of quantum of value. He further deposed that he

has recorded the statement of Sushila Devi and he has not investigated the truthfulness

of statement given by Sushila Devi from other sources. It is required that a proprietor

or partner of a firm is required to have technical knowledge of roads construction or

who is doing the business of construction of road. It is a common sense that a

proprietor or a partner of firm doing the business of the road construction is required to

have technical knowledge of road construction. A person can do the construction of

road by employing engineers and other expert persons in this field. He has not

investigated to find out that Sushila Devi doing the business of fish and milk from

1995. He has not investigated to find out the truthfulness of doing business of milk by

M/s Baba Basukinath Dairy Farm by its partners Sushila Devi and Sanjay Kumar Rai.

His conclusion is justified that Sushila Devi earned huge amount of Rs. 12 lakh from

the year 2004-05 to 2007-08 after being her husband Hari Narayan Rai Minister in

Government of Jharkhand. He did not make any investigation from Income Tax

Department as to whether the investment shown on fish and milk business of Sushila

Devi was treated as explained income or unexplained income. He further deposed that

this is the first case in Ranchi under PMLA and he has investigated it for the first time.

Thus, defence is not succeeded to take contradiction in the statement of this witness.



evidence.

47. P.W. 26- Dr. Prabhakant, Commissioner of Income Tax Department,

Delhi, has deposed that during the period of 2005 to 2012 he was posted as Joint

Director and Deputy Director in the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi and

Jharkhand, Ranchi comes under the Lucknow Zone of Enforcement Directorate and

this one’s was charge in addition of the charge of this Zone and ECIR/01/Pat/09/AD

was prepared by D.N. Poddar, Assistant Director-II of Patna Sub Zonal Office on

4.9.2009. After seeing Ext. 14, he identified his signature and proved it as Ext. 14/1


and deposed that ECIR was prepared by the I.O. after making preliminary inquiry and

source of ECIR case was the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26/2008 dated 26.11.2008. The

FIR of that case and newspaper reports of that papers were the source of this case.

D.N. Poddar investigated the matter and filed interim complaint u/s 45 of PMLA

against two persons Hari Narayan Rai and Anosh Ekka. He has signed on this

complaint on 11.12.2009 as Deputy Director. Since he was authorized signatory as a

Deputy Director and after seeing Ext. 15 (complaint), he identified his signature and

proved it as Ext. 15/1. He further deposed that after submitting Ext. 15, further

investigation of case were done separately against both accused persons and D.N.

Poddar has submitted supplementary complaint against Hari Narayan Rai on 4.3.2011

after completing his investigation. Seeing Ext. 17 he further proved his signature on

supplementary complaint as Ext. 17/1. He further deposed that both the complaints

was approved and forwarded by him and some properties relating to Hari Narayan Rai

was provisionally attached by him on 15.7.2010.

In the cross-examination this witness has deposed that he has not made

any investigation in this case. After seeing Ext. 17/1 and Ext. 15/1 he deposed that

these signatures were made by him in Delhi but date is not mentioned under the

signature. But he further stated that he has mentioned the date with his hand. Thus, no

vital question has been asked from this witness.

48. P.W. 27- Rajiv Jha, Account Manager, Nexzed Solution Technology

Pvt. Ltd. deposed that his office is situated in front of Vidhan Sabha and his company

engaged in the business of selling Mahindra car. The then Minister Hari Narayan Rai

had purchased a Scorpio SMXCRTE on 24.4.2006 for the value of Rs. 8,14,417/- and

he proved his invoice related to his office and under his signature as Ext. 18. He

further proved copy of account of payment related to above vehicle and deposed that

Rs. 21,000/- was given as advance as booking amount. He further proved it as Ext.

18/1. He further proved copy of ledger account of final payment as Ex. 18/2 and

deposed that on the request of E.D. he sent these documents along with forwarding

letter on 4.10.2013 and he proved the forwarding letter as Ext. 18/3. He deposed that a

person who have prepared the Ext. 18, has not signed as a witness and Ex. 18, 18/1

and 18/2 are related to transactions. A copy of invoice is given to customer and second

copy is sent to bank and third copy is kept in his office. No vital question has been

asked by the defence.

49. P.W. 28 - Vishnu Dev Bhagat, T.O. Secretariat Office, Dhurwa. He

proved the salary statement of the then Minister Hari Narayan Rai for the year 2005 to

2006 as Ext. 19. He deposed that net salary of Rs. 3,01,808/- was paid to the Hari

Narayan Rai during this year. He further proved the statement of salary for the


financial year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and deposed that Rs. 3,12,777/-, Rs.

2,67,500/- and Rs. 1,42,891/- was paid respectively to Hari Narayan Rai. He proved

the statements of salary as Ext. 19/1 to 19/3. He further deposed that all these

statements were given to E.D. on the request through the forwarding letter no. 401

dated 16.2.2016 and proved this document as Ext. 19/4. No vital question has been

asked from this witness. Thus, I find that this witness is an official witness. He has

proved so many documents and the statement of this witness deemed trustworthy,

reliable and admissible in the evidence.

50. P.W. 29 - Rewati Nandan Choudhary, an Advocate at Dumka. He

deposed that affidavit along with nomination form of Legislative Assembly for the

year 2005 related to Hari Narayan Rai was filled up by him under the direction of

Hari Narayan Rai. He proved this affidavit as Ext. 20 and he proved his signature on it

as Ext. 20/1 and endorsement was proved as Ext. 20/2.

In the cross-examination he deposed that since 2002 he knows

personally to Hari Narayan Rai and Ext. 20 was filled up by him in court campus on

his table.

51. P.W. 30 - Manoj Kumar Sah- a Notary Public at Dumka, deposed that

affidavit was notarized by him and he proved it as Ext. 20/3 and in cross-examination

he deposed that this affidavit was brought by Devkinandan and no vital question has

been asked from this witness.

52. P.W. 31 - Dr. Safi Ahmad Siddique is a businessman and proprietor of

Bihar Gun House, Ranchi, Doranda. He proved invoice no. 2193 related to Hari

Narayan Rai and deposed that a riffle of NP bore 306, riffle no. 1988 was sold to Hari

Narayan Rai on 31.1.2007 and 30 pieces of cartridges were also sold to Hari Narayan

Rai at the cost of Rs. 15,000/- and the cost of cartridges at Rs. 1875/- total payment of

Rs. 16,875/- was made in cash. He proved this copy of invoice as Ext. 21 and second

invoice no. 2400 dated dated 7.6.2007. He deposed that by this invoice he sold a NP

bore pistol (32) and pistol having its no. 38227. He also sold 15 pieces of cartridges

along with pistol and value of pistol is Rs. 15,000/- and value of cartridge is Rs.

1875/-. Total Rs. 16875/- cash payment was made and he proved this invoice as Ext.

21/1. This invoice was seized by CBI Inspector- Azam Raja and he identified his

signature on seizure memo and proved it as Ext. 21/2. He proved his forwarding letter

as Ext. 22. Through this letter on the demand of E.D., the documents were forwarded

by this witness on 20.5.2013.

In cross-examination no vital question has been asked from this

witness.


53. P.W. 32 - Rang Nath Pandey, Assistant Superintendent, Post Office,

Chief Post Master, Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi, deposed that during the period of 2010 to

2014 he was posted as Post Master in Head Post Office, Doranda. This witness

deposed that in the name of Sanjay Kumar Rai many accounts were opened in HEC

Expert Hostel, details of the accounts are given below.

A/c No. Account opening

form

Ext./proved by

PW 32

Pay-in-slip Amount

151400135 A application for

opening an account

Ext. 23- proved

by PW 32

Pay-in slip dt.

30.1.08 – Ext. 24

Rs.1 lakh

151400136 Account opening

form

Ext. 23/1-proved

by PW 32

Pay in slip dt.

30.1.08- Ext. 24/1

1 lakh

151400137 Account opening

form

Ext. 23/2- proved

by PW 32

Pay in slip dt.

30.1.08- Ext. 24/2

1 lakh

151400138 Application for

account opening

form one time

deposit for 5 years

Ext. 23/3- proved

by PW 32

Pay in slip dt. Dt.

30.01.08- Ext.

24/3

1 lakh


account opening

form one time

deposit for 5 years

Ext. 23/4- proved

by PW 32

Pay in slip dt.

30.1.08- Ext. 24/4

1 lakh


account opening

form one time

deposit for 5 years

Ext. 23/5- proved

by PW 32

Pay in slip dt.

30.1.08- Ext. 24/5

1 lakh


account opening

form one time

deposit for 5 years

Ext. 23/6- proved

by PW 32

Pay in slip dt.

30.1.08 – Ext.

24/6

1 lakh


account opening

form one time

deposit for 5 years

Ext. 23/7- proved

by PW 32

Pay in slip dt.

30.1.08 – Ext.

24/7

80,000/-


account opening

form one time

deposit for 5 years

Ext. 23/8- proved

by PW 32

Pay in slip dt.

30.1.08 – Ext.

24/8

90,000/-


This witness deposed that in the name of Sushila Devi of M/s Mahamaya

Construction following accounts were opened, which are given below.

A/c No. Account opening form Ext. Pay-in-slip Amount150101875-

Doranda

Head Post

Office

Application for account

opening form one time

deposit for 5 years

23/9 Pay in slip dt. 26.6.08-

Ext. 24/9

2 lakh

150101876-

Doranda

Head Post

Office



deposit for 5 years

23/10 Pay in slip dt. 26.6.08-

Ext. 24/10

1,80,000/-

131500496-

HSL Post

Office,

Ranchi



deposit for 3 years

23/11 Pay in slip dt. 11.8.08-

Ext. 24/11

4,14,000/-

131500498-

HSL

Colony

Post Office,

Ranchi



deposit for 3 years

23/12 Pay in slip dt. 25.8.08-

Ext. 24/12

3,80,000/-

131500499-

HSL

Colony

Post Office,

Ranchi



deposit for 3 years

23/13 Pay in slip dt. 25.8.08-

Ext. 24/13

7,20,000/-

150101749

Doranda

Head Post

Office



deposit for 5 years

23/14 Pay in slip dt. 14.3.08-

Ext. 24/14

2,48,600/-

150101750

Doranda

Head Post

Office



deposit for 5 years

23/15 Pay in slip dt. 14.3.08-

Ext. 24/15

3,22,600/-

150101866-

Doranda

Head Post

Office



deposit for 5 years

23/16 Pay in slip dt. 7.6.08-

Ext. 24/16

2 lakh

150101867 Application for account 23/17 Pay in slip dt. 7.6.08- 2,50,000/-


Doranda

Head Post

Office


deposit for 5 years

Ext. 24/17

150101775

Doranda

Head Post

Office



deposit for 5 years

23/18 Pay in slip dt. 25.4.08-

Ext. 24/18

4,50,000/-

This witness further deposed that the documents demanded by

Department of Enforcement from Post Office which, was supplied by him along with

forwarding letter dt. 7.9.12 and he further proved three forwarding letters as Ext. 25,

25/1 and 25/2 respectively.

In cross-examination this witness replied that these documents are not

belonged to his service period and the name of person is not mentioned over it, who

was Typewriter. Thus, I find that this witness is an official witness. He has proved so

many documents and the statement of this witness deemed trustworthy, reliable and

admissible in the evidence.

54. P.W. 33- Harish Chandra, Assistant Director of Enforcement

Department, deposed before the court that he has posted at Enforcement Directorate,

sub Divisional Office, Ranchi as Assistant Director since December, 2012. A

complaint petition was filed against Hari Narayan Rai and Anosh Ekka on 11.12.2009

and second complaint was filed on 9.3.2011 for the money laundering of the amount of

Rs. 4,33,70,000/-. Out of Rs. 66 lakh was attached provisionally on 15.7.2010.

Adjudicating authority has confirmed this attachment on 12.10.2010. He proved the

certified copy of final order as Ext. 26. The attached property is belonged to Hari

Narayan Rai, his brother Dev Narayan Rai, Sanjay Kumar Rai and his sister Anita

Devi and wife Sushila Devi. These persons are unable to provide the details of the

income of these properties. He found in the investigation that in the year 2005 Hari

Narayan Rai has furnished the details of his property before Election Officer as an

amount of Rs. 1,84,000/-. He further obtained salary detail of Hari Narayan Rai from

the Treasury Office of Project Bhawan, Ranchi for the financial year 2005 to 2009. He

has obtained signatures of the persons and collected the details of term deposits from

concerned Post Office in the name of Hari Narayan Rai. Rs. 20,40,000/- was received

and 10 term deposit for Rs. 34 lakh in the name of Sushila Devi and term deposit for

the amount of Rs. 12 lakh in the name of Sanjay Kumar Rai, was obtained. Further he

collected voucher for Rs. 33,750/- from Bihar Gun House from where a pistol and

riffle along with cartridges were purchased. The voucher of Rs. 33,750/- was obtained


and Scorpio vehicle was purchased from NEXGEN Solution Ranchi in the name of

Hari Narayan Rai for the amount of Rs. 8,14,000/-. He obtained invoices of the same.

Thereafter he collected documents of banks account, statements and found Rs.

8,38,000/- was available in the name of Hari Narayan Rai and in the Shayamali

Branch, Bank of India, Ranchi. He collected the account of statement related to which

was in the name of Hari Narayan Rai and third account of statement was obtained

from Syndicate Bank, Tilakpur, Deoghar which was in the name of Hari Narayan Rai

and on the basis of these documents, he prepared provisional attachment on 30.3.2015

in the amount of Rs. 1,87,62,072/-. This order was confirmed by adjudicating authority

on 6.8.2015 and proved the confirmation order as Ext. 27. He further deposed that

another supplementary complaint was filed against accused on 15.5.2016 and he

proved the supplementary complaint petition as Ext. 28. This witness was not cross-

examined by the defence. Hence this witness was discharged. So deposition of this

witness to be read in toto. From the perusal of deposition of this witness, he has

supported the case of prosecution. Thus, I find that this witness is an official witness.

He has proved so many documents and the statement of this witness deemed

trustworthy, reliable and admissible in the evidence.

55. The statement of accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded

his innocence. The documentary evidence produced on behalf of defence, is as

follows-

Ext. A – Family Arrangement Paper.

Ext. B – Report of Circle Officer bearing Memo no. 172 dated 11.2.13.

Ext. C to C/2 – Three certified copies of Khatian.

Ext. D – Land possession certificate dated 22.8.13.

Ext. A is the family settlement, executed by Nilkanth Rai in favour of Sanjay Kumar

Rai with regard of the land of Thana no. 379, Zamabandi no. 38, situated tat Mauza-

Dondiya. It is mentioned that the land is given to Sanjay Rai for cultivation and

maintenance and signature of family members are also available on this document. But

from the perusal of document it appears that this document is suspicious document

because it written on the stamp of 2 rupees only and in the back of the stamp paper, it

is not mentioned that what was the license number of the stamp vendor and who was

the stamp vendor of this document. It appears that this document is created to save the

skin of accused Hari Narayan Rai and to provide help of Hari Narayan Rai. From the

perusal of Mark ‘X’ and ‘Y’, it appears that it is photocopy of detailed estimate for

construction of residence of Sanjay Kumar Rai at Bampass Town, Deoghar. This

document neither bear the name of any person nor it bear the signature of the person

and from perusal of this document it is difficult to ascertain that who was the author of


this document. So these documents are found not genuine as well as reliable and it be

said that these are suspicious documents as such they have no place in the law. Ext. B,

C to C/2 and D are related with Lata Rai (PW 20). Thus, I find that these documents

are not admissible in evidence in this case.

56. Heard the arguments of both parties.

Ld. P.P. for the prosecution submitted that the prosecution has proved

that accused Hari Narayan Rai was elected an MLA from Jarmundi Legislative

Assembly in the year 2005 and he became Minister of Town Development and

Tourism Department. He had declared his property before the Election Commissioner

at the time of Election of State Assembly as, cash of Rs. 4,000/-, bank deposits Rs.

5,000/-, NSC, Postal Saving, LIC etc. of Rs. 1,25,000/-, jewellery of Rs. 50,000/-,

agriculture land 5.5 acre and one Khaprail house. After becoming MLA as well as

Minister as a public servant Hari Narayan Rai has acquired huge money by ill-gotten

and unknown sources of income. The untainted money was invested by Hari Narayan

Rai through his family members in the name of his wife Sushila Devi, brother Sanjay

Kumar Rai, Dev Narayan Rai, Nandlal Rai and sister Anita Rai. Prosecution further

proves that Hari Narayan Rai established construction companies, dairy Farm etc. with

the purpose to convert his ill-gotten money into genuine income. Prosecution further

proved that Hari Narayan Rai and his family members started to file returns in the

Income Tax Department when Hari Narayan Rai became a Minister in the Govt. of

Jharkhand prior to the period the family members along with Hari Narayan Rai never

used to file income tax return in the Income Tax Department. Prosecution has proved

that charge sheet filed by Vigilance Bureau, Jharkhand against Hari Narayan Rai, he

was found to be in possession of disproportionate asset to the tune of Rs.

1,63,49,417/-. His total income from various sources during the check period from

April, 2004 to 26.11.2008 came to Rs. 1,26,64,895/- and the expenditure came to the

tune of Rs. 35,32,014/-. Thus, he had the saving of Rs. 91,32,881/- against this saving.

His assets were computed to the value of Rs. 2,54,82,958/-. In this way he was found

in possession of disproportionate assets of Rs. 1,63,49,717/-. Hari Narayan Rai was

arrested by Department of Enforcement and during custody Enforcement Officer

examined and recorded his statement u/s 50 of the PMLA, 2002 on 17.10.2009,

19.10.2009, 20.10.2009, 22.10.2009 and 23.10.2009. However, accused Hari Narayan

Rai did not cooperate with the complainant and he simply avoided the specific

questions put to him. Statement of his family members, partners recorded u/s 50 of the

PMLA during investigation but they could not explain or give satisfactory answers

with regard to the assets purchased or invested in their names. The story of receiving

the loans from B.K. Tripathi, M/s Lemos Cement, M/s Samridhi Travels, Dev Narayan


Rai, Nandlal Rai, Lata Rai, Sukhdeo Pandit, Anita Rai also found unbelievable. Since

they have no any other source of income to give loan to any person. The prosecution

has proved its case that the story of loan is creatures of accused to save his skin from

the charges of corruption. So the income of these persons, also comes under the

purview of proceed of crime. So prosecution has proved its case against the accused.

Ld. Spl. P.P. submitted that property of the accused was provisionally attached and the

Adjudicating authority has confirmed these attachment order on 12.10.2010 ( Ext. 26)

and on 6.8.2015 (Ext. 27).

On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted during arguments

that there are contradictions in the statements of witnesses and the prosecution has not

been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and prosecution miserably failed

to prove its case against the accused. Further counsel for defence raised many issues

during the arguments which are discussed as mentioned-

(A) That, in the course of argument, the learned counsel for the accused Hari

Narayan Rai has raised the legal issue that -The amendment in the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002 whereby and whereunder the schedule to the said Act

was amended had come into effect from 01.06.2009 and therefore the accused cannot

be prosecuted for the acts committed prior to coming into force of the said

Amendment. On the other hand, Ld. P.P. for the prosecution has submitted that the

offence mentioned under the PMLA are come in the purview of continuous offence. So

the argument of defence is not applicable in the fact of this case. Prosecution has relied

on the reported case of Sajjan Singh V/s State of Punjab reported in 1964 AIR, SC 464

and Cr.M.P. No. 2686 of 2013, the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand judgment dated

22.03.2014.

Heard both parties and carefully perused the record and find that similar

issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sajjan

Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in 1964 AIR SC 464, wherein the accused

challenged the prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the

ground that he ceased to be a public servant before coming into force of the said Act.

And Further, the similar plea was raised before the Hon’ble

Jharkhand High Court by two accused namely Narendra Mohan Singh and

Ankita Singh in Cr.M.P. No.2686 of 2013 and the Hon’ble Court in a judgment

dated 22.03.2014 observed as under: -

“10. Further, in this regard, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of “Sajjan

Singh-versus-State of Punjab” (supra), wherein the appellant was put to trial for the

charges under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, when the assets acquired

by the appellant was found to be disproportionate to his know sources of income, the


stand, which had been taken is that the property, which was taken to be

disproportionate to his know source of income, had been acquired before Section 5(3)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was incorporated in Section 5 and, thereby, he is

not liable to be prosecuted under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The

contention was repelled by Their Lordships for the reason assigned in para-15, which

reads as follows:-

“15. It may also be mentioned that if pecuniary resources or property acquired before

the date of commencement of the Act were to be left out of account in applying sub-

section (3) of S.5 it would be proper and reasonable to limit the receipt of income

against which the proportion is to be considered also to the period after the Act. On

the face of it this would lead to a curious and anomalous position by no means

satisfactory or helpful to the accused himself. For the income received during the

years previous to the commencement of the Act may have helped in the acquisition of

property after the commencement of the Act. From whatever point we look at the

matter it seems to us clear that the pecuniary resources and property in possession of

the accused persons or any other person on his behalf have to be taken into

consideration for the purpose of sub-sec. (3) of S.5, whether these were acquired

before or after the Act came into force.”

11. Moreover, the facts of the case also never justifies the submission, which had been

advanced on behalf of the petitioners . It be stated that it is a case of the CBI that

Kamles Kumar Singh had acquired assets worth Rs. 5,46,07,597/- in between March,

2005 to July, 2009, whereas Section 13, as has been stated above, was incorporated in

the scheduled offence w.e.f. 01/06/2009. Therefore, the property derived or obtained as

a result of criminal activity relating to scheduled offence can easily be taken to be the

proceeds of crime. The petitioners were found to have been involved themselves in that

process or activity of the proceeds of crime in the year 2008 when they are said to

have advanced the money to Surya Sonal Singh, who has been found to have been

involved in the activity connected with the proceeds of crime from the years 2008 to

2012, when he invested the proceeds of crime in the Real Estate at Gurgaon, but all of

them have been found projecting it as untainted money much after incorporation of

Section 13 as scheduled offence. Moreover, one may find there had been inter

connected transaction of the proceeds of crime starting from the year 2008 to 2012. If

the prosecution has found Surya Sonal Singh to have involved himself in the activity or

process of the proceeds of crime, any transaction entered into in between petitioner

nos. 1, 2 and Surya Sonal Singh would be presumed to be interconnected transaction

in terms of the provisions as contained in Section 23 of PML Act, which reads as

follows:-


“23. Presumption in inter-connected transaction.- Where money-laundering

involves two or more inter-connected transactions and one or more such

transactions is or are proved to be involved in money-laundering, then for the

purposes of adjudication or confiscation under section 8, it shall, unless otherwise

proved to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority, be presumed that the

remaining transactions form part of such inter-connected transaction.”

12. Under the circumstances, the submissions, which had been made on behalf of

the petitioners that the transaction entered into by the petitioners in the year 2008,

cannot be subject matter of the prosecution under Section 3 of the PML Act, is not

worth acceptable.”

On the basis of above judgment, I find that the offence of Money

Laundering is committed on the day, an accused projects the tainted money/proceeds

of crime as untainted property. The same is a continuing offence. As the accused in the

instant case had obtained several properties from the proceeds of crime and he

continued in possession of the same and is projecting and had been projecting as

untainted money even after the commencement of the Amendment Act i.e. even after

01.06.2009, the accused is being rightly prosecuted under the provisions of Sections 3

and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Therefore, I would like to

differ my opinion from the submission by the defence counsel.

(B) In the course of arguments the counsel for the accused Hari Narayan

Rai raised that there is no provision in the Act which permits to the prosecution to

filing of supplementary charge-sheet. So the supplementary charge sheet / complaint is

not maintainable in the eye of law. On the other hand, Ld. Spl. P.P. for prosecution

submitted that this objection was raised before the Hon'ble High Court in Cr.M.P. No.

2686/2013. The Hon'ble Court differs his opinion as argued by the defence.

Heard both parties and perused the record and I find that issue

regarding maintainability of supplementary complaint is concerned, the said issue was

raised also in the Cr.M.P. No. 2686/2013 and the the Hon’ble Court in paragraph

16 of the judgment observed as under: -

“16. Going further into the matter, it be stated that the question has

been raised over the maintainability of the supplementary complaint on the premise

that the provisions as contained in Section 44 (1)(b) and 45 of the PML Act, refers

to 'a complaint'. Even if such reference is there of 'a complaint', it never prevents of

filing of supplementary complaint as the reference of a complaint has been made in

those provisions in the context that whenever a complaint filed by an authority

authorized, court may take cognizance over it."


Thus, in the principle laid down in the above mentioned case and

circumstances I find that there is no bar with regard to maintainability of

supplementary complaint is concerned. Therefore, I further differ my opinion with the

argument of the defence counsel.

(C) That during the course of arguments learned counsel for the defence

raised that the accused was a public servant and without previous sanction, prosecution

against him cannot be allowed by the law. On the other hand, Ld. Spl. P.P. for

prosecution submitted that no sanction as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. in the

prosecution against accused persons. The prosecution relied upon the judgment

reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) page 193 Prakash Singh Badal and others V/s State of

Punjab and others.

Heard both parties and perused the record. The issue raised on behalf of

defence that prosecution has not obtained sanction prior to institution of the case

against the accused. The Section 197 Cr.P.C. deals the provision of sanction.

According to section 197 Cr.P.C. -

“197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants. (1) When any person who is or was

a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or

with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been

committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official

duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the

time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with

the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the

time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with

the affairs of a State, of the State Government:

Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to

in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article

356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the

expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression "Central

Government" were substituted.

(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by

any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the

discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the “Central

Government.”


I find that the instant case is related with offence committed under the

provisions of Money Laundering Act and the “laundering of money” (for which the

accused is presently being prosecuted), has not done by the accused in the course of

discharge of his official duty and, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down a

law reported in the case of Prakash Singh Badal and others V/s State of Punjab

and others, in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) page 193 para 50. Thus in view of the settled

principle of law, no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required. It is a settled

principle of law that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required only in such cases

where the offence has been committed in the course of discharge of official duty. Thus,

I further differ my opinion with the argument of defence.

(D) In the course of argument counsel for the defence raised that a statement recorded

u/s 50 of the PMLA is not admissible in the Evidence Act, without any proof. On the

other hand, Ld. Spl. P.P. for the prosecution submits that provisions of PMLA are

different in nature and the statement recorded u/s 50 of PMLA by the officer of

Enforcement Department are admissible in the evidence Section 50(4) of PMLA

declares proceeding u/s 50 shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding.

57. Upon the hearing of both parties and from the perusal of provision of

Section 50, PMLA, it appears that the Director has the power conferred on the Civil

Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in respect of matters covered by Section

12 in the Act, sub section (2) confers power on the authorities to summon persons

whose attendance is necessary to give evidence or produce any record during course

of investigation or proceedings. Sub Section (3) directs persons summoned to appear

before the officer upon summon and to state the truth on the subject of the summons.

Sub Section (4) declares that every proceeding under Sub Section (2) and (3) shall be

deemed to be a judicial proceeding.

Further Section 71 of the PMLA provides that “the provisions of this

Act shall have effect not withstanding anything in consistent therewith contained in

any other law for time being enforce.” Thus, the statement recorded by the officers of

Enforcement Directorate u/s 50 of PMLA are recorded in a judicial proceeding. So it

can be read in evidence. Therefore, I don't feel any hesitation or doubt to accept these

statements in evidence. Hence, I further differ my opinion with regard to the

argument of the defence.

(E) During the course of argument learned counsel for the defence submitted,

that the law not permitted to prosecution to include property of the family members in

the account of accused Hari Narayan Rai. Therefore, the property of family members

is wrongly included in the account of Hari Narayan Rai. On the other hand, Ld. Spl.

P.P. for prosecution contended that the family members of accused were men of very


low means. There were no any source of income to earn huge money in short span of

time. It is ill-gotten money of Hari Narayan Rai which was invested / laundered by

Hari Narayan Rai in the name of his family members.

After hearing both parties, from the perusal of statement of witnesses,

it transpires that Nandlal Rai (P.W. 17), was working as a Para Teacher. Dev Narayan

Rai (P.W. 23) was working as a Panchayat Sewak, Sanjay Kumar Rai (P.W. 16) was

working as a cultivator cum contractor and sister Anita Rai (P.W. 18) was the

housewife and Sushila Devi (P.W. 21) wife of accused Hari Narayan Rai, was house

wife. All these persons mentioned above are have no other source of income. These

persons are of low means so that it is not possible for them to acquire or purchase the

immovable properties in their names or to invest the money in the Post Office or

Banks etc. They have not produced details of their properties to prove that the assets

are earned from lawful source of income. All these properties were purchased by

above mentioned persons when the accused Hari Narayan Rai was became a Minister

in the State of Jharkhand Government. When the question asked by the court from

Hari Narayan Rai accused at the time of recording of his statement u/s 313 of the

Cr.P.C. he has not given any answer of the questions. He gave answers that he did not

remember about the investments and he did not give any details of the properties /

investments. Therefore, I find that nothing is wrong to include the properties,

investment of these family members into the account of accused Hari Narayan Rai.

Therefore, I further differ my opinion from the argument of the defence counsel.

(F) During the course of argument, it was argued on behalf of defence that the

valuation of the properties was not done in accordance with law and the valuation

report prepared by valuer is not in accordance with law. The valuer has prepared his

valuation report on the rates of CPWD while in the state of Jharkhand the rates of

State, PWD are applied. Learned counsel for defence has relied upon the decision of

the Hon'ble Apex Court -Sri. Nar Bahadur Bhandari V/s CBI reported in

MANU/SI/003/2011, Pozir Uddin Ahmed V/s CBI Criminal Appeal No. 09/2010,

Judgment dated 5.11.2013 passed by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and O.T. Bhutia V/s

State of Sikkim reported in MANU/SI/0039/2010 and Commissioner of Income Tax

V/s Rajkumar reported in (1990) 182 ITR 436 (ALL). On the other hand, Ld. Spl. P.P.

submitted that there is no bar to value of the property in the rate of CPWD.

After hearing , I find that in this series of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex

Court as well as the different Hon'ble High Courts have been filed on behalf of the

defence, but I find that there is no application of these decisions of the Hon'ble Court,

so far as present case is concerned. Section 24 of PMLA imposes a liability on defence

to discharge the burden of proof.


According to section 24 of the PML Act- “when a person is accused of having

committed the offence u/s 3, the burden of proving that proceed of crime are untainted

property shall be on the accused.” Thus, the burden of proof is lies on the defence but

in this case defence has not produced any report with regard to the valuation to

contradict the valuation report proved by the prosecution. When the statement of

accused was recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. the accused replied that the valuation

done by valuer not according to the properties rather valuer valued the property on

high rates. I further find that defence has not produced any valuation report which was

prepared under the guidelines and rates of PWD nor the list of rates approved by PWD

which is applicable in the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, I find that there is no

illegality to accept the reports proved by the prosecution and relied upon the report in

this case. Therefore, I further differ my opinion from the argument made on behalf of

defence.

(G) During the course of argument, the counsel for defence raised that the law not

permitted to lodge one FIR against two unknown persons, who have no relation with

each other and allegation against them are also different. On the other hand, Ld.

Spl.P.P. for prosecution submitted that there is no legal bar to institute a case against

two person in one FIR.

After hearing of both party I find that the case is lodged on the complaint filed

by one Kumar Binod against the accused Hari Narayan Rai and Anosh Ekka and

others. The facts of the complaint were based on the reporting of newspapers, the same

complaint was sent by the court of Vigilance u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to case, accordingly,

P.S. Vigilance has registered the case against the accused persons named in the

complaint and after completion of investigation separate charge sheets were filed

against both the accused persons and separate trial is running against both the accused

persons. Therefore, in the above mentioned circumstances, I find that there is no

illegality to lodge one FIR against different two persons. I further differ my opinion

with the defence counsel.

58. From the perusal of record it appears that the charges has been framed

against the accused Hari Narayan Rai for the offence punishable u/s 4 of the PML

Act. From perusal of the record I find that the prosecution has proved by oral and

documentary evidence that Hari Narayan Rai had acquired the properties, invested the

money in Bank, Post Office, construction company, Dairy Farm, fish pond in favour of

himself and in the name of his family members which can be transpires from the

following tables-

(a) Details of property in the name of Hari Narayan Rai-


Sl.No.

In his Name the property was purchased by Hari NarayanRai

Valuation

1 The residential building at Sonaraithari proved by P.W. 19,

through Ext. 12/4

Rs. 10,35,000/-

2 One Scorpio vehicle bearing no. NEX/42/06-07 of

NEXGEN Solution Technology Pvt. Ltd. Is proved by P.W.

27 through Ext. 18, 18/1 and 18/2,

Rs. 8,14,417/-

3 One riffle of NP Bore 306 along with cartridge is proved byPW 31 through -Ext. 21

Rs. 16,875/-

4 One NP Bore pistol along with cartridge, proved by PW 31through Ext. 21/1

Rs. 16,875/-

Total Rs. 18,83,167/-

(b) In the name of Sanjay Kumar Rai, the property laundered by Hari

Narayan Rai are as follows

Account Numbers Amount1 In the A/C no. 151400135 the money was invested and

proved by P.W. 32 through Ext. 23 and Ext. 24.

Rs.1 lakh

2 In the A/c No. 151400136 the money was invested and

proved by P.W. 32 through Ext. 23/1 and 24/1.

1 lakh

3 In the A/c no. 151400137 the money was invested and

proved by P.W. 32 through Ext.23/2 and 24/2

1 lakh



1 lakh



1 lakh



1 lakh



1 lakh



80,000/-




90,000/-

10 P.W. 19 proves through Ext. 12/1, the valuation of theproperty in the name of Sanjay Kumar Rai & Sushila Devi,Residential building at Bampass Town, Suraj Mal Jalan,Deoghar

Rs. 50,45,000/-

11 P.W. 14 Ashok Kumar Sinha proved Ext. 10/3 proves that inthe name of Sanjay Kumar Rai, was purchased throughsale deed no. 1804 dated 02.06.2006

1,66,000/-

12 P.W. 14 Ashok Kumar Sinha proved Ext. 10/4 proves that inthe name of Sanjay Kumar Rai, Plot No. 725, part Area1707 sq.ft.was purchased through 2380 dated 14.07.2006

1,87,500/-

13 P.W. 14 Ashok Kumar Sinha proved, Ext. 10/4 proves thatin the name of Sanjay Kumar Rai, through sale deed no.1286 dated 21.04.2008

12,16,000/-

Total Rs. 74,84,500/-

(c) Details of the property acquired / purchased in the name of Sushila Devi.

Sl.

No.

Account numbers Amount



2 lakh

2 In the A/c no. 150101876the money was invested and proved

by P.W. 32 through Ext.23/10 and 24/10

1,80,000/-

3 In the A/c no. 131500496 the money was invested and proved


4,14,000/-



3,80,000/-



7,20,000/-



2,48,600/-

7 In the A/c no. 150101750the money was invested and proved


3,22,600/-

8 In the A/c no. 150101866 the money was invested and proved 2 lakh





2,50,000/-



4,50,000/-

11 Ext. 9/3 proved the statement of Sri. B.K. Tripathi, partner ofM/s Samridhi Travels was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA but hecould not explain the sources of fund/income.

Rs. 5,50,000/-

12 Ext. 9/7 proved the statement of Sri. N.P. Singh was recordedu/s 50 of PMLA but he could not explain the sources offund/income.

Rs 8,00,000/-

13 Ext. 9/3 proved the statement of Sri. B.K. Tripathi, Partner ofM/s Samridhi Travels was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA but hecould not explain the sources of fund/income.

Rs. 3,00,000/-

14 Other savings, No source Rs. 2,50,000/-15 P.W. 19 Birendra Prasad Singh through Ext. 10 and Ext. 12

proves the property purchased in the name of Hari NarayanRai & Smt. Sushila Devi, H-35, Harmu Housing (H.I.G.),Ranchi, its valuation calculated -

Rs.1,14,40,000/-

16 P.W. 12 Abhiram Nayak proved by Ext. 10 sale deed no. 47 dated 5.3.08 related to lease deed ofSushila Devi and Rohit Singh Rathor

Rs. 19,00,000/-

17 In the Saving Bank A/c no. 14 (Ext. 3) P.W. 1 proves thatmoney deposited in this account on 24.1.2008, 20.12.2008

Rs. 25,000/-

18 SB A/c no. 0150100004360 (Ext. 1/17), that on 17.7.2007,31.8.2007, 16.10.2007 and 24.12.2007 total money wasdeposited in cash.

Rs. 6,07,000/-

19 Current A/c no. 13, M/s Maa Gauri Construction, balance inthe account as on 29.1.2009.

Rs. 17,149/-

Total Rs. 1,92,54,449

Details of the property of M/s Baba Basuki Dairy Farm and Fish Pond

Sl.No.

Details of property in the name of Hari NarayanRai, Sushila Devi

Estimatedinvestment/valuation

1 P.W. 19, Ext. 12/2 proves the value of BabaBasuki Dairy Farm belong to Hari Narayan Rai,Sanjay Kumar Rai and Sushila Devi.

Rs. 52,70,000/-

2 P.W. 19, Ext. 12/3 proves the valuation of fishpond belong to Hari Narayan Rai, SanjayKumar Rai & Smt. Sushila Devi.

Rs. 23,50,000/-

Total Rs. 76,20,000/-

Details of the property in the name of Sushila Devi and Sanjay Kumar Rai.


In the name of Sushila Devi and Sanjay KumarRai.

1 Saving A/c No. 14, Vananchal Gramin Bank,Sonaraithari, Deoghar, money deposit on14.1.2008 and 20.12.2008.

Rs. 20,000/-

2 Saving Bank A/c no. 493920110000047 in thename of M/s Mahamaya Construction, moneydeposited in cash on 9.5.2008.

Rs. 3,50,000/-

Total Rs. 3,70,000/-

In the name of Dev Narayan Rai

In the name of Dev Narayan Rai

1 P.W. 14 Ashok Kumar Sinha proved, Ext. 10/6proves that in the name of Dev Narayan Rai,property was purchased through sale deed no.2301 dated 14.07.2006

Rs. 90,000/-

2 P.W. 14 Ashok Kumar Sinha proved, Ext. 10/1proved that in the name of Dev Narayan Rai, .Land was purchased through 11. Deed No. 2502dated 22.08.2006 on payment of considerationmoney.----

Rs.1,87,500/-

Total Rs. 2,77,500/-

In the name of Anita Rai, sister of Hari Narayan Rai.

In the name of Anita Rai, sister of Hari NarayanRai.

1 P.W. 14 Ashok Kumar Sinha proved, Ext. 10/7proved that in the name of Anita Rai, Plot no.492, Area 3600 sq.ft. was purchased through saledeed no.3188 dated 24.10.2008

Rs2,27,500/-

2 P.W. 14 Ashok Kumar Sinha proved, Ext. 10/2proves that in the name of Anita Rai, , plot no.492, J.B. No. 3532.was purchased through saledeed no. 161 dated 29.01.2008

Rs1,37,000/-

Total Rs. 3,64,500/-

From the perusal of above table, it is clear that the properties / earnings

are belong to Hari Narayan Rai, found in name of himself, his brother Sanjay Kumar

Rai, Dev Narayan Rai, Anita Rai and Sushila Devi including fish pond, dairy Farm and

construction company and Gross Total of Rs. Rs, 3,72,54,016/- is proved by

prosecution as tainted money which is earned by the accused from other than legal

sources or unknown sources and it is laundered in the name of above person, it is

proved that same is earned from the proceeds of crime.


59. From the perusal of record I find that the accused Hari Narayan Rai son

of Late Nil Kanth Rai, resident of village Sonaraithari, P.S. Sonaraithari, District-

Deoghar, was elected from Jarmundi Legislative Assembly, Constituency in the year of

2005 and later on became Minister, Town Development & Tourism Department, Govt.

of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Hari Narayan Rai declared his assets and furnished the details of

his property before Election Commissioner, at the time of Election as cash in hand of

Rs. 10,000/-, Bank deposits of Rs. 5,000/-, others (NSC, LIC etc.) of Rs. 1,25,000/-

and agriculture land area 5.5 acre and jewellery (in the name of wife) of Rs. 50,000/-

only.

From the perusal of record it appears that accused Hari Narayan Rai

was married with Sushila Devi and he has three brothers and one sister namely

Nandlal Rai, Dev Narayan Rai, Sanjay Kumar Rai and sister Anita Rai. Nandlal Rai

(PW 17) was working as a Para Teacher since 2003 at Madhya Vidhalaya Sonaraithari.

His brother Dev Narayan Rai was working as a Panchayat Sevak since 2010 and

Sanjay Kumar Rai was working as a farmer-cum- businessman and Anita Rai, sister of

accused was housewife but she claimed that she and Shshila Devi housewife, was

engaged in the business of make-up of bride and the wife of above persons are

housewife. Thus, these above persons are of low means. It is further proved by

prosecution that movable and immovable properties are purchased by Hari Narayan

Rai in the name of his wife Sushila Devi, Sanjay Kumar Rai, Nandlal Rai, Dev

Narayan Rai, Anita Devi in Ranchi, Deoghar etc. Before Hari Narayan Rai became an

MLA, there was no movable assets in his name. His known source of income prior to

his become MLA were only from contractor ship and agriculture activities and there

was no other source of income other than salary and allowances from the Jharkhand

Government. He has started filing return in the name of his wife, brothers and brother's

wives respectively, for the purpose thereof they have obtained separate PAN numbers

in the name of each family members and his relatives and by showing fictitious source

of income and projected his proceeds of crime as untainted property.

60. It is proved by the prosecution that in order to convert the proceed of

crime as untainted property, Hari Narayan Rai has also purchased several properties

after manipulating the real values of the same. He has also opened several bank

accounts in his name as well as in the name of his family members and deposited

substantial amounts in the said bank accounts projected the same to be untainted

money and it is established that the same are the proceed of crime committed by Hari

Narayan Rai as a Minister during the period he hold the post of Minister, Town and

Tourism Development, Govt. of Jharkhand and during the interrogation he failed to

explain any other legal source of income for acquiring such properties. It appears that


he has committed the said offence with the connivance, aid and assistance of the other

persons including his wife, brother and brother's wives and other relatives. It is found

that accused Hari Narayan Rai was involved in corruption and he stands fictitious

partnership firm M/s Mahamaya Construction, M/s Maa Gauri Construction and M/s

Baba Basuki Dairy Farm in the name of his wife and brother from the earnings which

was generated by way of corruption. His wife Sushila Devi was engaged in the

business of fish, milk, construction of road through partnership firm M/s Mahamaya

Construction without any experience and these firms were established by the name of

family members when Hari Narayan Rai became a Minister in the Jharkhand

Government. Sanjay Kumar Rai was a contractor of petty nature and cultivator but the

property is invested in the name of following persons details of the same are

mentioned in the chart below-

Details of investments along with amounts are mentioned below in the chart-

Sl.No.

Investment details Amount

1 In the name of Hari Narayan Rai Rs. 18,83,167/-

2 In the name of Sanjay Kumar Rai Rs. 74,84,500/-

3 In the name of Sushila Devi Rs. 1,92,54,349/-

4 In the name of M/s Basuki Dairy Farm Rs. 52,70,000/-

5 In the name of fish pond Rs. 23,50,000/-

6 In the name of Sushila Devi and Sanjay Kumar Rai Rs. 3,70,000/-

7 In the name of Dev Narayan Rai Rs. 2,77,500/-

8 In the name of Anita Rai Rs. 3,64,500/-

Total Rs. 3,72,54,016/-

61. It is found that Rs. 3,72,54,016/- was obtained by Hari Narayan Rai,

directly or indirectly from the proceed of crime and P.W. 25 and P.W. 33 deposed that

this money is earned by committing offence under Section 420, 423, 424, 120B of the

I.P.C. and Section 13 of Corruption Act. From the perusal of Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, I find that the Section 420, 423, 424, 120B of the I.P.C. are

mentioned as scheduled offence under paragraph 1 of part A of the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act and the provisions of Section 13 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 are the scheduled offence in the paragraph 8 of part A of the

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

I would like to perused the important relevant provisions of Prevention

of Money Laundering Act, 2002-

Section 2(y) of PMLA – “Scheduled offence” means -


(i) The offences specified under part A of the schedule or

(ii) The offences specified under part B of the schedule if the total value involved in

such offences is Rs. 30 lakh or more.

In the instant case it is proved by prosecution that accused acquired to

Rs. 3,72,54,016/- other than legal sources. So, this amount comes under the definition

of scheduled offence and this amount is obtained by Hari Narayan Rai from proceed of

crime.

The term “proceed of crime” has been defined in Section 2(u) of the PMLA,

which reads as under-

2 (1)(u)- “Proceed of crime” means any property derived or obtained, directly or

indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence

or the value of any such property.

According to section 24 – Burden of Proof.

In any proceeding relating to proceed of crime under this Act-

(a) In the case of a person charged with the offence of Money Laundering

u/s 3, the authority or court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such

proceed of crime are involved in Money-Laundering and

(b) In the case of any other person the authority or court, may presume that

such proceed of crime are involved in Money-Laundering.

Thus, this section imposes an onerous burden on the accused to prove that the

property is not acquired by the tainted money and in this regard, therefore, the accused

has to either show that the property is not his, that the property has been acquired by

other legitimate sources of funds or further that the transaction has no nexus between

the properties or that the property is an ancestral property which was acquired much

long before with proof. In this case defence has not produced any evidence to prove

that this property is not tainted property and the same is acquired by legal source of

income. Thus, the defence is fully failed to discharge its burden of proof rather

prosecution has established that the accused was found in possession of proceed of

crime.

Section 3 – Offence of Money Laundering-

Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or

knowingly is a party of is actually involved in any process or activity connected with

the proceed of crime and projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence

of Money-Laundering.

62. Thus, I find that the prosecution has proved the offence under PMLA,

2002 that Hari Narayan Rai was derived from an activity of commissioning offence of

the provisions of Section 420, 423, 424, 120B of the I.P.C. and the provisions of


Section 13 of Corruption Act is proved by the prosecution. It is further proved that

Hari Narayan Rai had invested the money in immovable / movable properties which

was purchased by him in his wife's name Sushila Devi, in the name of his brothers and

in companies business concerned. By investing tainted money in immovable / movable

properties, he projected his tainted money to be clean legally earned money. The

payments made by Hari Narayan Rai either directly or through his relatives/ their

business concerns to the concern persons / sellers in respect of purchase of properties

are part of proceed of crime. I, therefore, have reason to believe that Hari Narayan Rai

has committed an offence. Thus, the accused Hari Narayan Rai has committed the

offence of Money Laundering defined in the Section 3 which is punishable u/s 4 of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

63. Thus, regard being had to the facts and circumstances and evidences

available on the record, I am of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove its

case against the accused Hari Narayan Rai beyond all reasonable doubts u/s 3 of

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which is punishable u/s 4 of PMLA.

64. In result I find and hold that accused Hari Narayan Rai guilty of

offence charged with u/s 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Accordingly, I convict him for the same. Bail bond of accused is hereby cancelled and

he is ordered to be taken into judicial custody.

Dictated and corrected by me.

( Bal Krishan Tiwari) (Bal Krishan Tiwari)

Spl. Judge, PMLA-cum-C.B.I./A.C.B.. Spl. Judge, PMLA-cum-C.B.I./A.C.B.

Ranchi Ranchi


Later on

30/01/17

Heard on the point of sentence

65. Learned counsel for the convict has submitted that the convict is also

convicted in R.C. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R. He is respectable persons of the society. He is in

judicial custody since long. Hence he prayed that a lenient view may kindly be taken

while awarding punishment.

On the other hand, Ld. Spl. P.P. appearing for the Department of

Enforcement vehemently opposed the contention made by the learned defence counsel.

He has submitted that severe punishment should be awarded to convicts, so that message

goes into the society and in future the public servant, or such type of person would

refrain from doing such illegal and immoral act and further submitted that property

involved in money-laundering also confiscated in favour of Government.

66. Heard. The convict has given to a serious offence, which has become

menace in the society these days. Convict Hari Narayan Rai, being an Ex-Minister of

Government of Jharkhand, found that property laundered acquired and invested for the

amount to the tune of Rs. 3,72,54,016/-. With regard to lenient view, this principle is

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court- State of M.P. V/s Shambhu Dayal Nagar

(2006) 8 SCC 693 at page 701 -

“It is difficult to accept the prayer of the accused that a lenient view be

taken in this case. The corruption by public servant has become a gigantic problem. It

has spread everywhere. No face of public activity has been left unaffected by the stink of

the corruption. It has deep and pervasive impact on the functioning of the entire country.

Large scale corruption retards the Nation building activities and everyone has to suffer

on that count. Corruption is corroding like cancerous, lymph, nodes, he vital veins of the

body, politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demolishing the honest

officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant

devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and

devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of this post. The reputation

of corrupt would gather thick and unchangeable clouds around the conduct of the

officers and gain notoriety much faster then the smoke.”

This is a criminal misconduct on the part of the convicts also, certainly

but in awarding the sentence, the caste, class, sex, age, social status etc. of the convicts

have got no role to play and as it is not considered. As per section 8 (5) of PMLA, 2013

“Where on conclusion of a trial of an offence under this Act, the Special Court finds that

the offence of money-laundering has been committed, it shall order that such property


involved in the money-laundering or which has been used for commission of the offence

of money-laundering shall stand confiscated to the Central Government.”

O R D E R

67. In the aforesaid circumstances I sentence the convict Hari Narayan Rai to

undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years for the offence committed by him

punishable u/s 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. He is further sentenced to

pay a fine of Rs. 5 lac for committing this offence and in default, the convict will have to

undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 18 months. Further it is ordered that the property

used in money-laundering stands confiscated to the Central Government. The period

already undergone during the trial and investigation is ordered to be set off. O/C to issue

conviction warrant.

Dictated and corrected by me.

( Bal Krishan Tiwari) (Bal Krishan Tiwari)

Sd/- Sd/-

Spl. Judge, PMLA-cum-C.B.I./A.C.B.. Spl. Judge, PMLA-cum-C.B.I./A.C.B.

Ranchi Ranchi

30/01/17 30/01/17

Date post:	05-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phamlien
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times