JUDGMENT : KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow. 2. By means of the present application, the applicant seeks bail in Complaint Case No. 1003 of 2021, arising out of ECIR/1/LKZO/2018, under Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act), Police Station- Directorate of Enforcement, District-Lucknow, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY 3. An Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) has been registered on the basis of scheduled offence comprising of First Information Report dated 19.6.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 831 of 2017, u/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC and Sections 7 & 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) against the accused persons. Thereafter, investigation was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and it was found that a huge amount was embezzled in the project of Gomti River Front. The State Government took cognizance of this project and ordered judicial enquiry headed by Hon'ble Mr. (Retd.) Justice Alok Kumar Singh. After conducting a thorough enquiry, a comprehensive report was submitted to the State Government on 16.5.2017 and on that basis, the FIR was lodged against the erring officials of the concerned department for further proceedings. 4. CBI registered the case as Case Crime No. RC0062017A0026 on 30.11.2017 for further investigation of Gomti River Channelization Project and Gomti River Front Development. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by the CBI on 15/16.02.2021, u/s 120-B read with 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act against the applicant and other co-accused persons. 5. On the basis of predicate offence investigated by the CBI, the Directorate of Enforcement investigated the matter u/s 3/4 of PML Act and vide Provisional Attachment Order No. 04/2019 dated 29.6.2019, the property of the applicant's wife Shyama Devi worth Rs. 30 lakhs was attached. The Special Court took cognizance of the complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement on 15.7.2021 u/s 3/4 of PML Act. RIVAL CONTENTIONS 6. Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per the complaint, an amount of Rs. 98.89 lakhs is alleged to have been acquired by the accused persons as proceeds of crime. The allegation levelled against the applicant pertains to embezzlement of Rs. RIVAL CONTENTIONS 6. Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per the complaint, an amount of Rs. 98.89 lakhs is alleged to have been acquired by the accused persons as proceeds of crime. The allegation levelled against the applicant pertains to embezzlement of Rs. 30 lakhs in respect of taking possession and acquisition of property as proceeds of crime. The alleged property was purchased in the name of applicant's wife on 10.9.2013 and the same has wrongly been attached by the Directorate of Enforcement as the date of purchase of the alleged property is almost three years prior to the date of allegation i.e. during June, 2016. The Directorate of Enforcement has acted mechanically and has failed to extract the money trail and have wrongly attached the said property. There is no reason or explanation provided by the department which depicts that the attached property reflects the proceeds of crime and is involved in the act of money laundering. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the Directorate of Enforcement has not undertaken any independent investigation and their complaint is in verbatim to the narration of the FIR lodged by the CBI. The applicant has also denied of having received any illegal amount from one Amit Yadav, Proprietor of M/s. Crossland Engineering and Infra Developers Private Limited. He was not responsible for the allotment of contract to the said company and the alleged contracts were executed on the directions of Chief Engineer as he could not pass the tenders for an amount of Rs.1 crore or more. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and his statement u/s 50 of PML Act has been recorded by the Directorate of Enforcement on 31.5.2018, 24.8.2018, 28.8.2018, 25.6.2019, 26.6.2019 and 26.8.2020. The statement of Amit Yadav has been recorded by Directorate of Enforcement on 29.1.2019 and 5.2.2019 after recording the fourth statement of the applicant i.e. on 25.6.2019. The applicant has never been confronted with the statements given by Amit Yadav on 25.6.2019, 26.6.2019 & 26.8.2019. He has further submitted that the maximum sentence provided to the offence referred in the charge-sheet is seven years and the applicant is in jail since 22.9.2021. The trial has not proceeded any further. No offence u/s 3/4 of PML Act is made out against him. 9. He has further submitted that the maximum sentence provided to the offence referred in the charge-sheet is seven years and the applicant is in jail since 22.9.2021. The trial has not proceeded any further. No offence u/s 3/4 of PML Act is made out against him. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further referred relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 SCC Online SC 882 wherein it has been held that officers, who are invested with powers u/s 53 of NDPS Act, are “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, any confessional statement made before them would attract the bar of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be taken into account to convict an accused. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the investigative procedure especially in the Statute of PML Act is pari materia to that under NDPS Act. He has further relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Nikesh Tara Chand Shah vs. Union of India, 2013 (2) SCC (Cri.) 302 and the relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “Regard being had to the above, we declare Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail, to be unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 11. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the bail of the present case falls in the category of less than one crore and there is a provision introduced in Section 45(ii) of PML Act inserted vide Act No. 13 of 2018 by way of amendment dated 19.4.2018 to release the person on bail if the case falls within one crore. 12. The Authority or Court word used in Section 24(a) or (b) would mean and only mean the Authority constituted under the Act and Courts. Otherwise, expression would defeat the object of Section 24 of PML Act. The investigation conducted by the CBI, ED or any other police agency would not fall within the category of proceedings. He has further stated that the applicant was not arrested during investigation and has retired on 31.12.2016. The complaint was filed on 2.12.2020 before the Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow. The investigation conducted by the CBI, ED or any other police agency would not fall within the category of proceedings. He has further stated that the applicant was not arrested during investigation and has retired on 31.12.2016. The complaint was filed on 2.12.2020 before the Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow. The sole allegation against the applicant is that one Amit Yadav had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs vide two cheques dated 5.9.2016 and 9.6.2016 which were handed over to applicant in cash. The applicant has no criminal history. He is in jail since 20.11.2020 in predicate case and since 22.9.2021 in this case. There is no likelihood of early disposal of the trial. The applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he will never misuse the liberty and will cooperate in trial. 13. Per contra, Sri Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that rigors of Section 45 of PML Act are applicable to the present case. As per Section 24, the burden of proof lies upon the accused pertaining to the alleged amount of Rs. 30 lakhs. The total scam is of Rs. 1500 crores. He has further relied upon the report dated 16.5.2017 prepared by Hon'ble Mr. (Retd.) Justice Alok Kumar Singh after conducting a thorough inquiry in the matter in which it has come on record that there was illegal money gratification paid to certain accused engineers in cash and through banking transactions which were nothing but the properties involved in money laundering. 14. Sri Shukla has further stated that as per the Rules, an amount of “centage charge” was to be deposited in the appropriate account head of the concerned department through Treasury Challan or through electronic payment. In the instant project, centage charge to the tune of Rs. 71 crores was not deposited for the period of March, 2015 to December, 2015. During this period, the applicant was the Executive Engineer of the concerned department and on being questioned referring the deposition of the said centage charge, he could not provide any documentary evidence of having deposited it. 15. On this count, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that a request was moved by the department for the waiver of said centage charge and, therefore, centage charges were not deposited. 16. 15. On this count, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that a request was moved by the department for the waiver of said centage charge and, therefore, centage charges were not deposited. 16. Sri Shukla has also referred to the statement of one Siddh Narain Sharma, who has stated that it was the sole responsibility of the Executive Engineer to deposit the “centage charges” and he has also stated that he was not aware as to whether the said “centage charges” were deposited or not. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant while working as Executive Engineer in the Gomti River Front, did not follow the financial rules whereas the amount due for centage charges were used elsewhere without any approval of the authority. Thus, the applicant did not discharge his official responsibility but indulged in misappropriation and diversion of funds without any approval. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that the applicant is not on bail in the predicate offence. 17. It is also stated that the applicant did not pay due diligence in the construction on RCC Diaphragm Wall and misused his official position. The applicant is stated to have signed an agreement for work of “Intercepting Drain” without any financial sanction. The applicant is stated to have used the financial details and profile of his wife Shyama Devi to channelize, place, layer and project i.e. launder the illegitimate properties involved in money laundering derived and obtained by him through illegal monetary gratifications in Gomti River Front Project. 18. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that investigation is still going on and as per the current stage, the liability of applicant is Rs. 30 lakhs, that of the co-accused Anil Yadav is Rs. 53.89 lakhs and that of S.N. Sharma is of Rs. 15 lakhs only. CONCLUSION 19. The matter pertains to a large scam of Rs. 1500 crores and it was an admitted fact that the applicant was the then Executive Engineer in the department and it was his responsibility to deposit the said “centage charges.” 20. Corruption is a form of dishonesty which is undertaken by a person or persons or organization, which is entrusted with a position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse of power for one's personal gain. 21. Corruption is a form of dishonesty which is undertaken by a person or persons or organization, which is entrusted with a position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse of power for one's personal gain. 21. Of late, we have seen a steep surge in the said means of corruption by those who are in power. Power which may be muscular, administrative or monetary if misused has deletarious effect on others i.e. society as a whole. 22. Lala Hardayal in his book “Hints for Self Culture” has stated as under: “Take heed lest you grasp the shadow and miss the substance. You may coin your Brain into money, but then you are abusing and misusing this rare gift of Nature. Intellect should be employed chiefly as an instrument of growth and social service. It must not be a tool for exploiting your fellow-citizens......” 23. The applicant has clearly misused the power entrusted to him and he does not deserve any leniency. 24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence, embezzlement of huge amount, complicity of accused as well as the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 25. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. 26. However, it is directed that every endeavor shall be made by the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, if there is no other legal impediment, within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 27. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.