9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... standing in the market and society. The Appellant is ready to secure an amount of ₹ 3.97 Lakhs, but the respondent is not agreeable. The entire computation is illegal manner because as per the Respondent's own case, the alleged value of the material purportedly obtained by fraudulent means is ₹ 18,97,090/- which has been rounded to ₹ 19 lakhs by the Respondent. However, while effecting the attachment, the attachment was made for an amount of ₹ 21,20,000/- as per the value ascribed by the Complainant himself. The Respondent at the best could have directed the Appellant to secure ₹ 3.97 lakhs for the purpose of trial. The Respondent's pursuit to only attach immovable property, admittedly unconnected to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 37 in Sy.No.1/4 at Hasmathpet Village, Kukatpally Municipality, Balanagrmandal, Ranga Reddy District valued by Complainant at ₹ 4,20,000/-. 3. The said attachments have been effected for value equivalent of the proceeds of crime. 4. It is undisputed fact that the attached property admeasuring 420 Sq. Yards was purchased on 01.05.2005. However, 210 Sq. Yards of the said property was sold by the Appellant on 14.09.2005 by registered sale deed to Mr. Miryala Srinivas and Miryala Madhavi. 5. The alleged commission of scheduled offence qua the Appellant is that the Appellant, in conspiracy with one Mr. Anand Kiran defrauded one Mr. D.R Prasad to wrongfully obtain steel worth ₹ 18,97,090 which was in turn sold in open ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material as per respondent while effecting the attachment was for an amount of ₹ 21,20,000/- as valued by the Complainant. Although the same was of ₹ 18,97,090/-. 11. As per Complainant own showing, the market value of the attached property of the appellant is about rupees 60 lakhs (ED has concluded that the total proceeds of crime estimated at ₹ 19 Lakhs), but Complainant has attached properties higher than the alleged proceeds of crime. As per the case of the respondent, the property at the hands of the Answering Defendant is attached as the equivalent value of the alleged proceeds of crime. But it is not understood, how the property of much greater value was attached as per admitted fact. Thus, it was without any app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. S.V. Anand Kiran allegedly defrauded one Mr. D.R Prasad to wrongfully obtain steel worth ₹ 18,97,090. The Appellant is alleged to have purchased the Steel from said Mr. Anand Kiran at ₹ 15,00,000/- through one Mr. Pankaj Goyal knowing fully well that the steel for sum of ₹ 18,97,090/- was obtained by fraudulent means. Thus, at the best, the Appellant is alleged to be liable to an extent of ₹ 3.97 lakhs as proceeds of crime. 15. The PAO prima facie was bad and illegal against the appellant because the Respondent, apart from merely reproducing the language of the Act, did not give any reasons or cogent reasons, to satisfy the preconditions of Section 5. Similarly, the Adjudicating Authority confirmation under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ket and society. The Appellant is ready to secure an amount of ₹ 3.97 Lakhs, but the respondent is not agreeable. 18. The entire computation is illegal manner because as per the Respondent‟s own case, the alleged value of the material purportedly obtained by fraudulent means is ₹ 18,97,090/- which has been rounded to ₹ 19 lakhs by the Respondent. However, while effecting the attachment, the attachment was made for an amount of ₹ 21,20,000/- as per the value ascribed by the Complainant himself. 19. The Respondent at the best could have directed the Appellant to secure ₹ 3.97 lakhs for the purpose of trial. However, the Respondent‟s pursuit to only attach immovable property, admittedly unconnect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
