LexBINOD KUMAR versus STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
(2011) 4 S.C.R. 646
BINOD KUMAR
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2689 of 2011)
MARCH 29, 2011
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: ss. 7, 10, 11, 13(2) r. w.
s.13(1)(e); Penal Code, 1860 - ss.409, 420, 423, 424, 465
C
and 120-B - Mu/ti-crore scam - Corruption in the matter of
grant of iron ore mining lease -
Various former minister
including a former Chief Minister of the State involved -
Allegation against the appellant also - Investment alleged to
have been made in the property, shares etc. not only in India,
D but, also abroad - Basic investigation requiring determination
as to whether the money was acquired by an abuse of the
official position amounting to any offence under the 1988 Act
and under /PC, the persons by whom this was done, the
amount which was so earned and places where it was invested
E - No clear a/legations as regards money laundering - High
Court held that there was an area of overlap and the same
cannot be allowed to form a tool in the hands of the accused
to scuttle the investigation - Looking to the gravity and
magnitude of the matter, High Court referred the matter to the
F
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and also observed that
the Central Government should exercise the powers u/
s.45(1 A) of the PMP Act for transferring investigation from the
Enforcement Directorate (ED) to the CBI and if such an order
is not passed by the Central Government, any material found
G
by the CBI during investigation, which would lead to an
inference of money laundering within the PML Act would be
shared by the CBI with the ED from time to time to enable
the ED to take such action as may be necessary- On appeal,
held: It was categorically stated that the CBI was investigating
H
646
•
•
BINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND
647
ORS.
into the commission of offences under /PC and Prevention A
of Corruption Act alone and was not investigating any offence
under the PML Act as the investigation under the PML Act
was solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction and domain
of the ED , which was of course subject to the exercise of
powers by the Central Government u/s.45(1-A) - There is no B
provision restricting the investigation of offence other than that
of money laundering by any appropriate investigating agency
-
On consideration of the totality of the facts and
circumstances, no interference with the orders of the High
Court called for - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 c
- s.45 (1A).
In the writ petition filed before the High Court, the
basic allegation was amassing of illicit wealth by various
former ministers, including a former Chief Minister of the
State. The allegation was against the appellant also. The D
money alleged to have been so earned was of
unprecedented amounts which were allegedly invested
in property, shares etc. not only in India but also abroad.
The basic investigation required determining whether
money had been acquired by an abuse of the official E
position amounting to an offence under the Prevention
of Corruption Act and under the Indian Penal Code, the
persons by whom this had been done, the amount which
had been so earned and places where it had been
invested. The High Court in the impugned judgment held F
that it was neither possible nor desirable to give a
positive finding about how much of the crime proceeds
were projected as untainted and therefore, there was an
area of overlap and same was not allowed to form a tool
in the hands of the accused to scuttle the investigation. G
The High Court referred the matter to the CBI. The High
Court also observed that the Central Government should
exercise the powers under Section 45{1A) of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 {PML Act) for
H
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A transferring the investigation from the Enforcement
Directorate to CBI and if such an order is not passed by
the Central Government, any material found by the CBI
during investigation, which would lead to an inference of
money laundering within the PML Act would be shared
B by the CBI with the Enforcement Directorate from time to
time to enable the Enforcement Directorate to take such
action as may be necessary. The instant appeal was filed
challenging the orders of the High Court.
c
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The matter on the face of it required a
systematic, scientific and analExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.