SC rejects Bail plea of Rohit Tandon for alleged Possession & Conversion of Demonetized Notes

The fact that no limit for deposit was specified, would not extricate the appellant from explaining the source from where such huge amount has been acquired, possessed or used by him. The volume of demonetized currency recovered from the office and residential premises of the appellant, including the bank drafts in favour of fictitious persons and also the new currency notes for huge amount, leave no manner of doubt that it was the outcome of some process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime projecting the property as untainted property. No explanation has been offered by the appellant to dispel the legal presumption of the property being proceeds of crime. Similarly, the fact that the appellant has made declaration in the Income Tax Returns and paid tax as per law does not extricate the appellant from disclosing the source of its receipt. No provision in the taxation laws has been brought to our notice which grants immunity to the appellant from prosecution for an offence of money­laundering. In other words, the property derived or obtained by the appellant was the result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The argument of the appellant that there is no allegation in the charge­sheet filed in the scheduled offence case or in the prosecution complaint that the unaccounted cash deposited by the appellant is the result of criminal activity, will not come to the aid of the appellant. That will have to be negatived in light of the materials already on record. The possession of such huge quantum of demonetized currency and new currency in the form of Rs.2000/­ notes, without disclosing the source from where it is received and the purpose for which it is received, the appellant has failed to dispel the legal presumption that he was involved in money­ laundering and the property was proceeds of crime.