Jharkhand High Court on why Prem Prakash should face trial in Sahibganj mining scam
Advertisement Ranchi, Dec. 23: The Jharkhand High Court has said that there are sufficient prima facie materials against Prem Prakash,…
Prem Prakash
Ranchi, Dec. 23: The Jharkhand High Court has said that there are sufficient prima facie materials against Prem Prakash, an alleged power broker, to prove that he was involved in the proceeds of the crime generated out of illegal mining in Sahibganj.
“Prem Prakash’s nexus has been revealed in the proceeds of crime. He has not been able to demonstrate how the said amount is there in his account. Also, he could not explain before the ED of storing the stamp paper back-dated,” the court has observed.
Discharge petition
Rejecting his petition to challenge the order on framing charges against Prem Prakash in a money laundering case, a single bench, headed by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, in a judgement delivered on December 21, said that the PMLA court, while rejecting the discharge petition, has not acted as a post office only. “He has applied his judicial mind to look into the materials and after that has been pleased to dismiss the discharge petition by a cogent order,” the court said.
Proceeds of crime
The court said that for a property to be regarded as proceeds of crime, it was essential for it to be established that it had been obtained upon the omission of a scheduled offence.
Also read: Jharkhand High Court on why Prem Prakash should face trial in Sahibganj mining scam
“Admittedly, Prakash is not named as accused in any scheduled offence. However, action has been resorted to against the properties, which were in his hands or possession, and he has involvement in the criminal activity, based on that same are “proceeds of crime”, the court said.
The court said that the Barharwa P.S. case no. 85 of 2020 is still being scrutinised by the High Court as well as by the Supreme Court.
“How one Bijay Hansda has been tried to overpowered by the person behind the scene has been considered by this Court in a writ petition, and the CBI is also investigating his conduct under direction issued by this court,” Justice Dwivedi observed.
Indrajit Sinha, appearing for Prem Prakash, said that the ED has not disclosed the proceeds of crimes in the Barharwa police station case.
He further submitted that after registration of the Barharwa Police Station case, only Rs. 41,48,000 has been transmitted to the account of Prem Prakash. He further stated that in the Barharwa case, although at the time of registration of the FIR, Section 120B was there, the chargesheet had not been submitted under Section 120B of the I.P.C., and in spite of that, the said FIR was made to register the case as an ECIR case by the Enforcement Directorate.
On the other hand, additional Solicitor General of India Anil Kumar said the Barharwa case is still pending as certain high-ups have not been charge-sheeted in that case.
He further submitted that a writ petition was filed for an independent investigation of the Barharwa case in which specific directions have been issued by the court and impleading of the ED as one of the respondents was challenged before the Supreme Court by the State Government and that SLP is still pending and that order of impleading ED has been stayed by the
Supreme Court. So, the Barharwa case has yet to attain finality, he added.
He stated that the statements of Ankush Rajhans, Bijay Hansda, and Binod Kumar Jaiswal have been recorded. He further stated that one Sanjay Kumar Choudhary, the director of CTS company, is also linked with Prem Prakash.
He further submitted that a person’s involvement in any criminal activity like concealment, possession, acquisition, or use of proceeds of crime constitutes the offence under section 3 of the Money Laundering Act.
What is Barharwa case?
The ED filed an ECIR based on FIR no. 85 of 2020 lodged by Barharwa Police Station in Sahibganj against 11 known and unknown persons. The complainant, Shambhu Nandan Kumar, said that Pankaj Mishra, CM’s assembly constituency representative and others, on 22.06.2020 had threatened and obstructed him from participating in the tender for Barharwa Toll. He stated that Pankaj Mishra asked him over the phone not to participate in the tender on refusal, of which he was attacked by a mob at his behest.
The investigation revealed that the main reason for not allowing Shambhu Nandan to participate in the tender was to gain control over the 06 tolls under Nagar Panchayat.
The investigation further revealed that 06 tolls fixed by Barharwa Nagar Panchayat tolls fall in the route connecting the mining sites and the main road from where the mined items are transported to various destinations. It was revealed that the vehicles carrying the mined items (mainly stone chips) had to cross the Barharwa toll before reaching the main road.
It is also pointed out that apart from mining under valid license, a huge quantity of mining was being carried out illegally in Sahebganj District and ad-joining areas. The control over the Barharwa Nagar Panchayat toll would have enabled
Pankaj Mishra and his accomplices control and dominate the area, allowing them to monitor the number of vehicles and the quantity of mining proceeds being carried out in those vehicles.
