9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ‟) in respect of various properties including the following properties belonging to the Appellant: Land Admeasuring 420 yards at Plot No. 37 in Sy.No.1/4 at Hasmathpet Village, Kukatpally Municipality, Balanagrmandal, Ranga Reddy District valued by Complainant at Rs. 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 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid property which was purchased in 2005, six years prior to the disputed transaction. 10. The alleged value of the material as per respondent while effecting the attachment was for an amount of Rs. 21,20,000/- as valued by the Complainant. Although the same was of Rs. 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 Rs. 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possession of third party. 14. The allegation against the appellant was that in April 2011, one Mr. S.V. Anand Kiran allegedly defrauded one Mr. D.R Prasad to wrongfully obtain steel worth Rs. 18,97,090. The Appellant is alleged to have purchased the Steel from said Mr. Anand Kiran at Rs. 15,00,000/- through one Mr. Pankaj Goyal knowing fully well that the steel for sum of Rs. 18,97,090/- was obtained by fraudulent means. Thus, at the best, the Appellant is alleged to be liable to an extent of Rs. 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 precondi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhs. The Appellant is a steel trader with good financial standing in the market and society. The Appellant is ready to secure an amount of Rs. 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 Rs. 18,97,090/- which has been rounded to Rs. 19 lakhs by the Respondent. However, while effecting the attachment, the attachment was made for an amount of Rs. 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 Rs. 3.97 lakhs for the purpose of trial. However, the Respondent‟s pursuit to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
