2018 (10) TMI 1014 - AT - Money Laundering

Attachment orders - PMLA proceedings - main contention of the appellant is that the appellant has no connection or related to Syed Mobin and his wife, Aisha Naheed his property was wrongly attached under suspicion, therefore, both the orders should be quashed. Held that - The appellant submits that his property was attached merely on the basis of that the appellant and Aisha Naheed were carrying on partnership business under the name of M/s. Premier Plastic Industries by virtue of partnership deed dated 25.08.1989, till 31.03.1998. She has already retired from the partnership business and deed of retirement was executed between the parties on 31.03.1998 and by virtue of said retirement deed, the appellant became the absolute owner and proprietor of said M/s. Premier Plastic Industries. There was no justification whatsoever to attach his property. Additional arguments are made on his behalf that the main accused Syed Mobin has already been discharged in the schedule offence by the Judgement dated 1st April, 2017 where no appeal has been filed by the State and similarly he and his wife have also been discharged by the Special Court (Lokayukta) and Principal Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi in the PMLA complaint being Special Case no. 58/2016 by Judgement dated 1.8.2018. There is no challenge on behalf of the respondent for passing of two Judgements acquitting the main accused Syed Mobin and his wife in PMLA proceedings. Provisional attachment order quashed. The properties attached are released forthwith.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of provisional attachment order on appellant's property.
2. Alleged connection of appellant with Syed Mobin and Aisha Naheed.
3. Justification for attaching appellant's property.
4. Discharge of main accused Syed Mobin and his wife in related proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns an appeal related to the attachment of the appellant's property under a provisional attachment order dated 30.03.2016, confirmed by an impugned order dated 22.09.2016, which the appellant challenged. The appellant argued that the attachment was unjustified as he had no connection with Syed Mobin and Aisha Naheed, and thus, both orders should be quashed.

2. The appellant contended that the property was attached based on a partnership between the appellant and Aisha Naheed in M/s. Premier Plastic Industries until her retirement on 31.03.1998. Following her retirement, the appellant became the sole owner. The appellant argued that there was no basis for attaching his property, emphasizing the lack of justification for the attachment.

3. Additionally, it was highlighted that the main accused, Syed Mobin, had been discharged in the schedule offense, with no appeal filed by the State. Similarly, the appellant and his wife were discharged in the PMLA complaint. The counsel argued that since the main accused and his wife were acquitted in related proceedings, there was no merit in the impugned order, urging for its reversal.

4. The judgment noted that there was no challenge from the respondent regarding the acquittal of the main accused and his wife in the PMLA proceedings. Considering the circumstances and the acquittal of the main accused, the impugned order dated 22.09.2016 was set aside. Consequently, the provisional attachment order was quashed, and the attached properties were ordered to be released immediately.