9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m House. A case was registered against A1 along with others vide FIR No. RCMA1/2005A/0031 on 29.06.2005 by CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Chennai for allegedly being in possession of assets and pecuniary resources in his name for alleged offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. 3. In CC No. 18 of 2009 dated 13.01.2009, the trial is under progress in the court of 14th Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai. 4. The Deputy Director, ED, Chennai registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR No. CZO/08/2015 dated 20.02.2015) against A1 and A2 after six years as the aforesaid offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a sch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rights of the citizen enshrined in Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, 2nd respondent filed the case only based on the charge sheet of the CBI, who have not conducted any enquiry on their own. In fact, all the documents are original documents of the alleged proceeds of crime, which are in the custody of the CBI Court. When the entire documents are in the custody of the Court, there cannot be any reason to believe that the properties will be dealt with in any other manner. The impugned order was as if 1st petitioner not able to offer any satisfactory explanation during examination. Therefore, the attachment officer has passed an order without a reason to believe that the proceeds of crime are likely to be transferred or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elhi as well as Enforcement Directorate are duly represented by the public prosecutor. Even the respondent was aware about the pendency of quashing petition prior to final hearing of the said petition. 11. It was the duty of the Adjudicating Authority and the Enforcement Directorate to inform the officer who in violation of the order passed by the Madras High Court has passed the impugned order. The said confirmation has been challenged before us by filing the appeal. Reply to the appeal has been filed. The counsel for the respondent does not dispute that the impugned order was passed after passing the order by the Chennai High Court where the proceedings under Section 5 were quashed and despite the same quashing of the provisional attachm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
