9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1379 - AT - Money LaunderingOffence PMLA - attachment orders - HELD THAT - It is Special Act, the provisions of this Act have to be considered on the date of offence as well as on the date of passing the orders. The appellants are acquitted from the schedule offence, no appeal has been filed either by the State or ED as admitted by the counsel for the respondent. Admittedly, the State as well as the respondent has not challenged the acquittal order before any Court even after expiry of 3 years. The respondent has merely stated that the Bank was cheated by the appellants as well as the main accused, the Bank has challenged the said order before the High Court and the appeal filed by the bank is pending. It is an admitted position that the Bank is not a party in the present proceedings. Therefore, in case the order was to be challenged, it was to be challenged by the ED or the State. The same has not happened. Thus, attachment of two properties lapses under the operation of law. The impugned order is set-aside by allowing the appeal.
Issues:
1. Appeal against Impugned Order of Adjudicating Authority 2. Initiation of proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 3. Role of accused in scheduled offences under IPC 4. Provisional attachment of immovable properties 5. Adjudication process under PMLA 6. Effect of acquittal on attachment of properties Analysis: 1. The appellants filed appeals against the Impugned Order of the Adjudicating Authority, challenging the proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Tribunal decided to hear the appeals, which were filed within the stipulated time frame. 2. The proceedings under PMLA were initiated following the filing of a Charge Sheet under the Cr.PC by the Inspector of Police against several accused individuals for offenses under IPC Sections 409, 419, 420, 468, and 471. The Directorate of Enforcement conducted investigations under the relevant provisions of PMLA, as authorized by law. 3. The accused individuals were found to have committed scheduled offenses under IPC Sections 420 and 471, involving criminal conspiracy to cheat banks by presenting fake cheques. The investigation revealed their roles in the offenses, leading to the initiation of proceedings under PMLA. 4. Two immovable properties belonging to the accused individuals were provisionally attached under PMLA, and a complaint was filed before the Adjudicating Authority. Notices were issued to the defendants, including the appellants, pursuant to the provisions of the Act. 5. The adjudication process involved a Two Member Bench hearing the defendants and their counsels, with a schedule set for arguments. The appellants filed replies before the Adjudicating Authority, and the legal provisions under PMLA regarding adjudication were followed. 6. Despite being acquitted by the Special Court for the scheduled offenses, the question arose regarding the impact of the acquittal on the attachment of properties under PMLA. The Tribunal considered the relevant provisions of PMLA and noted that the attachment of properties ceased to have effect upon the acquittal of the accused individuals. As no appeal was filed by the State or ED, the attachment of properties lapsed, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, as the attachment of properties lapsed under the law due to the acquittal of the accused individuals.
|
