9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1983 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - properties acquired through tainted money - transplantation of kidney resorting to illegal means by forging the identity of the donor, fabricating documents, etc. - Offences under Sections 294(b), 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 197, 419 506(ii) of IPC 1860 read with Section 19 of Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - Sub-section (5) of the Act, deals with the power of the Adjudicating Authority on the conclusion of a trial, to confiscate the property, and it has no relation to the case on hand. Attachment and confiscation are different. Attachment of the property has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, as per the statutory provisions. Therefore in terms of Rules 8(3) 8(4) of the above said Rules, physical possession of the attached property has to be taken. However, considering the difficulty expressed, the Appellate Tribunal, has passed a considered Order, dated 4.6.2015. There is no ground to interfere with the Order - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Police Authorities under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994. 2. Legality of the Provisional Attachment Order under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. 3. Validity of the eviction notice issued by the Enforcement Directorate. 4. Applicability of Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 5. Procedural compliance with the Prevention of Money-laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Police Authorities under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994: The Appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Police Authorities to register and investigate cases under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (TOHO Act). The Court, in an earlier order dated 18.2.2015, held that the Police Authorities had no jurisdiction to investigate under the TOHO Act and directed the Police to hand over the file to the Appropriate Authority notified under the TOHO Act. 2. Legality of the Provisional Attachment Order under Section 5(1) of PMLA: The Appellant contested the Provisional Attachment Order dated 18.8.2014 issued under Section 5(1) of PMLA, arguing that it was based on tainted money from illegal kidney transplants. The Joint Director of Enforcement Directorate formed an opinion that the Appellant acquired properties through proceeds of crime. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed this attachment, leading to further legal challenges by the Appellant, including a writ petition and an appeal, both of which were dismissed. 3. Validity of the eviction notice issued by the Enforcement Directorate: The Appellant received a Notice of Eviction dated 18.5.2015 to vacate the property. The Appellant argued that eviction before the conclusion of the trial under PMLA was premature and would cause irreparable loss and hardship. The Appellate Tribunal ordered a stay of dispossession on the condition that the Appellant deposits ?25,000 per month from February 2015 and arrears by 15th July 2015. The Court upheld this interim order, emphasizing that the physical possession of the attached property must be taken as per statutory provisions. 4. Applicability of Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India: The Appellant argued that the order of the Appellate Tribunal violated Articles 14 (Equality before law), 19 (Protection of certain rights regarding freedom), 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty), and 300-A (Right to property) of the Constitution of India. The Court, however, noted that the right to property is not a fundamental right but a constitutional right under Article 300-A. The Court referred to the legislative intent of dispossession under Section 8(4) of PMLA to prevent wastage or spoilage of property until confiscation. 5. Procedural compliance with the Prevention of Money-laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013: The Respondents followed the procedure prescribed under the PML (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013. Notices were issued, and possession was taken in compliance with Rule 6, which mandates serving notice and publishing it in local newspapers. The Court confirmed that the Respondents acted within their jurisdiction and complied with the statutory requirements. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, upholding the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 4.6.2015. The Appellant was directed to deposit the arrears within two months and continue depositing the monthly charges as ordered. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the procedural and statutory compliance by the Respondents.
|
