9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1533 - HC - Money LaunderingCalculation of recovery percentage - Illegal quarrying in areas beyond the licensed patta land - granite quarry - alleged quarrying in Government poramboke land, besides misstating recovery percentage - HELD THAT - This is not a case where no reasons have been provided in the impugned order. Therefore, case on hand clearly distinguishable on facts qua Mahanivesh Oils case. However, this court makes it clear that no opinion or view is expressed regarding 'reason to believe' adduced in the impugned attachment order, as this court has no difficulty in accepting the contention of learned Solicitor that impugned attachment order is only a provisional attachment order and the same has to be adjudicated upon and an order has to be passed regarding whether properties which are subject matter of attachment are involved in money laundering. Proviso to section 8(2) makes it clear that writ petitioner has to be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money laundering. This Court finds that the matter does not end there. Even if the adjudication and outcome of the adjudication under section 8(2) is adverse to the writ petitioner or in other words, even if the impugned attachment order which is provisional, is confirmed, writ petitioner has right of appeal to the appellate authority under section 26 of PMLA Act and thereafter, a further appeal to High /Court under section 42 of PMLA Act. Oher than saying that recovery percentage aspect did not come up for consideration in the other order, there is no other reason much less convincing reason for this court to take a different view. As the recovery percentage aspect has already been adverted to, addressed and answered supra elsewhere in this order, it is also a matter of judicial discipline that the order made by another Hon'ble Single Judge is applied in the instant case also. In any event, this court is left with the considered view that there is no reason much less compelling reason for this court to take a different view. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged illegal quarrying beyond licensed patta land and in Government poramboke land. 2. Misstatement of recovery percentage causing significant financial loss to the Government. 3. Legality of the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act). 4. Validity of the proceedings initiated under the PMLA Act, including the impugned complaint. 5. Adequacy of the "reason to believe" in the provisional attachment order. 6. Availability and adequacy of statutory remedies under the PMLA Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Alleged Illegal Quarrying Beyond Licensed Patta Land and in Government Poramboke Land: The subject matter of the writ petition pertains to alleged illegal quarrying in areas beyond the licensed patta land, specifically in Government poramboke land. This illegal activity is said to have caused significant financial losses to the Government, amounting to Rs.58.50 Crores and Rs.21.00 Crores. Two First Information Reports (FIRs) were registered in this regard: FIR No.619 of 2012 and FIR No.21/2015. The investigation is ongoing, and a charge sheet has been filed concerning one of the FIRs. The writ petitioner is identified as the nucleus of these FIRs and the subsequent charge sheet. 2. Misstatement of Recovery Percentage: The petitioner contended that the issue of recovery percentage, which refers to the actual units of granite computed as a percentage of the excavated chunk, is yet to be crystallized. The petitioner argued that the impugned attachment order and the consequent impugned complaint are premature due to the unresolved recovery percentage issue. However, the court noted that the FIRs and charge sheet involve other aspects beyond the recovery percentage, such as illegal mining in Government poramboke land. 3. Legality of the Provisional Attachment Order under the PMLA Act: The first respondent initiated proceedings under the PMLA Act and issued a provisional order of attachment dated 29.03.2019, attaching some of the petitioner's immovable properties. This provisional attachment order, issued under Section 5(1) of the PMLA Act, was challenged in the writ petition. The court examined the "reason to believe" provided in the impugned attachment order and found that it contained detailed reasons for the attachment, distinguishing it from the Mahanivesh Oils case cited by the petitioner. The court emphasized that the attachment order is provisional and subject to adjudication under Section 8(2) of the PMLA Act, where the petitioner would have an opportunity to be heard. 4. Validity of the Proceedings Initiated under the PMLA Act, Including the Impugned Complaint: The first respondent filed a complaint before the adjudicating authority under Section 5(5) of the PMLA Act, which was also challenged in the writ petition. The court noted that the adjudicating authority must confirm the provisional attachment, and the petitioner has statutory remedies available under the PMLA Act, including appeals to the appellate authority and the High Court. The court found that the statutory process should be allowed to take its course. 5. Adequacy of the "Reason to Believe" in the Provisional Attachment Order: The petitioner argued that there was no "reason to believe" that the petitioner was likely to conceal, transfer, or deal with the alleged proceeds of crime. The court reviewed the impugned attachment order and found that it provided detailed reasons for the attachment. The court distinguished the case from the Mahanivesh Oils case, noting that the reasons for attachment were recorded and the attachment was provisional, subject to further adjudication. 6. Availability and Adequacy of Statutory Remedies under the PMLA Act: The court highlighted the availability of statutory remedies under the PMLA Act, including appeals to the appellate authority and the High Court. The court emphasized that the petitioner has multiple layers of remedies available and that the provisional attachment order is subject to adjudication. The court found no compelling reason to deviate from the detailed and elaborate order made by another Single Judge in a similar matter, which was carried in appeal and not stayed. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the provisional attachment order and the impugned complaint were part of the statutory process under the PMLA Act, which provides adequate remedies for the petitioner. The court emphasized the need for judicial discipline and consistency with previous rulings, particularly in the absence of a stay or reversal of the prior order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
