Bogus Claims of Huge Amount: Himachal Pradesh HC Upholds PMLA Offence relying on ‘reasons to believe’ [Read Order]

Vikas Bansal, the petitioner under section 19 of PMLA Act, which is in blatant and flagrant violation of the statutory provisions enshrined in BNSS & PMLA. The case of the petitioner is that an FIR was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation

(CBI) on 07.05.2019, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 465, 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons.

Tax Planning For NRIs Click here

After the lodging of FIR, CBI conducted searches and seizure at 22 educational institutions, including the Himalayan Group of Professional Educational Institutions and Apex Group of Educational Institutions, which had applied for and received financial assistance under the Post-Matric Scholarship Scheme for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) students in State of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner was serving as Vice Chairman of the Himalayan Group of Professional Educational Institutions at Kala Amb, District Sirmaur.

In the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested by the CBI on 8th of April 2022. He was enlarged on bail by this High Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 856 of 2022, dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure P1). After conclusion of the investigation, multiple Charge Sheets were filed by CBI before learned Special Judge (CBI), Shimla. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused along with eight other individuals and challan was presented before the Court of learned Special Judge (CBI), Shimla, on 18.04.2022. Charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988.

The ECIR was based on predicate offence, allegedly committed by the accused. Thereafter, the respondent filed a prosecution complaint, dated 21.10.2023, before learned Special Court, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, at Shimla. The Court has taken cognizance of the said complaint against the accused persons named therein on 23.04.2024. Further as per the petitioner, the respondent conducted searches under Section 17 of the PMLA on 29.08.2023 at various premises associated with the petitioner. This included the residential premises of his brother, Rajnish Bansal, who was the Chairman of the Himalayan Group of Profession Educational Institutions and Apex Group of Institutions.

 Know Tax Planning Real Estate Transactions Click here

Certain documents were seized by the respondents in the course of the search. As per the petitioner, he was summoned only once on 5.11.2019 by the then Investigating Officer, namely, Vishal Arya. Petitioner fully cooperated with the investigation, disclosed all facts within his knowledge and his statement was recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA. Thereafter, no summons were issued to the petitioner or received by him until 30.01.2024, on which date, he was arrested by the officers of the respondent in an illegal manner.

In the year 2024, the investigation was assigned to Vishal Deep, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate. Said officer started abusing his official position and unlawfully demanded a bribe of Rs.60.00 Lac from petitioner’s brother Rajnish Bansal, under the threat of arresting him. Rajnish Bansal refused to oblige Vishal Deep and reported the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Upon verification of the allegations, CBI registered FIR No. RC0052024A0034, dated 22.12.2024, under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the “the PC Act”). Thereafter, a trap was laid following the recording of the incriminating conversations between Rajnish Bansal and Vishal Deep.

However, during the trap operation, Vishal Deep managed to evade the arrest and fled from the scene. Subsequent investigation led to the recovery of money from one Yash Deep, a close associate of Vishal Deep, to whom, he had handed over the bribe amount while escaping. Besides this, one more FIR was registered against Vishal Deep on the complaint of one Bhupender Sharma, i.e. FIR No. RC0052024A0033, dated 22.12.2024, under Section 74A of the PC Act at Police Station, CBI, ACB, Chandigarh. Copies of said two FIRs are appended with the writ petition as Annexures P-2 and P-3 respectively.

Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here

As per the petitioner, during the course of investigation, CBI arrested Vishal Deep. Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the arrest of the petitioner on 30.01.2025, besides being an act of vengeance, was in complete derogation of the provisions of Section 19 of the PMLA. Learned Senior Counsel argued that after the complaint was filed against the petitioner under the PMLA, from the year 2019 up to the date of his arrest, he was called for the purpose of investigation only once. The petitioner not only fully participated in the investigation, but he fully cooperated in the same. It was submitted that as there was flagrant violation of the statutory provisions of Section 19 of the PMLA, therefore, the arrest per se was bad in law.

The ‘reasons to believe’ mention, inter alia, that an FIR was registered on 07.05.2019 under Sections 409, 419, 465,466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. CBI conducted searches and seizures at 22 private institutions, including Himalayan Group of Professional Institutions and Apex Group of Institutions, which had applied and received Post Matric Scholarship Scheme for SC/ST/OBC students of Himachal Pradesh.

The Court has held that the arrest of the petitioner was not in violation of Section 19(1) of the Act, the remand of the petitioner by the Court of Judicial Magistrate can also not be faulted with, as the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate is also confined to ensuring that the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act are complied with in letter and spirit.

The discrepancies pointed out in the order of Judicial Magistrate, which were specifically referred to by Senior Counsel for the petitioner, also do not render either arrest or remand of the petitioner to be bad, for the reason that when the foundation of the arrest of the petitioner is being upheld by the Court, the edifice would also survive.

How to Compute Income from Salary with Tax Planning, Click Here

From the response of the respondent-Department and the documents appended with the reply, it is evident that statutory safeguards were properly complied with in the present case. The Arresting Officer was an Authorized Officer under Section 19 (1) of the PML Act and the ‘reasons to believe’ that the petitioner was ‘guilty’ of the offence punishable under the PML Act were based on the material in possession of the Authorized Officer.

It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was informed about the ‘grounds of arrest’ soon after his arrest. This Court again reiterates that in this backdrop the sufficiency or adequacy of material, on the basis of which the belief was formed by the Arresting Officer or the correctness of the facts on the basis of which the belief was formed to arrest the petitioner, cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review in terms of the law declared by the Supreme Court.

The ‘reasons to believe’ categorically spell out that Vikas Bansal was involved in the predicate offence as well as in the commission of offences under PML Act. In terms of the contents of the ‘reasons to believe’, Vikas Bansal through HGPI had generated Proceeds of Crime (PoC) of Rs.14,49,03,665/- by submitting 1729 false and bogus claims and had generated Proceeds of Crime to the tune of Rs.3,80,28,270/- by submitting 636 false and bogus claims to the Department of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh through AGPI of students, who were not officially registered or enrolled in courses with respective Universities/Board for HGPI and AGPI.

It is further mentioned in the ‘reasons to believe’ that through the Trust named Maa Saraswati Educational Trust, Vikas Bansal had acquired two immovable properties separately at Kala Amb, H.P., measuring 59.09 bighas of land for Rs.59.45 lac and 13.06 bighas of land for Rs.90 lac in the year 2017 by using the fee collected from students of HGPI and bank loans and the money obtained as a result of bogus claims of scholarship under PMS Scheme was mixed with the legitimate income of Maa Saraswati Educational Trust and People Welfare Education Trust. The Proceeds of Crime were utilized for payment of salaries and expansion of College etc.

In the light of above discussion, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel found no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates