9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016 dated 03.06.2016. The appellant is Defendant no.4 in the O. C. 2. The appellant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority and passed any of other(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case. 3. As it reveals from the record that the present appellant, a special class contractor undertaking various govt. projects alleged to have been involved in many criminal activities including attempt to murder, extortion ("dada-bati"), tender fixing, offences under Arms Act, etc. for which five FIRs lodged against him and others by Chauliaganj Police Station, Cuttack, Odisha since the year 1982 and was lodged in Jail under Judicial custody. In the present case He wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PC r/w Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959. 6. It is also seen from the record that a plain paper FIR was drawn by Sh. Ajay Kumar Das, IIC, Chauliaganj PS, Police Commissionrate, Bhubansewar on 03.02.2016 at 2pm. In the said plain paper FIR the fact of involvement of the present appellant in extortion etc. and the seizure of Rs. 12,44,000/- have been reflected. Consequent thereto a regular case was registered vide PS case no. 27/16 u/s 387/120B/34 IPC r/w 25(1-AA)/ 27 of Arms Act against the present appellant and others. Thus, Rs. 12,44,000/- has been made as a proceeds of crime under this PS case no. 27/16. 7. It is also revealed from the record that charge sheets in PS case no 12 dated 30.01.2014 and 27/16 dated 03.02.2016 were filed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the same is neither seized nor involved in PS case no. 27/2016. 9. The appellant has filed a copy of Final Form under Section 173 CrP.C. filed before SDJM, Cuttack in the matter of FIR No. 27 dated 03.02.2016 for commission of offences under Section 387/120(B)/34IPC read with Section 25(1-B)(a)/25(1-AA)/27 of Arms Act. In the said Final Form, the present appellant has been cited as Accused No.3. The brief facts stated therein are that during search of the house of the appellant, while investigating Chauliaganj PS Case No.12 dated 18.01.2016, on 01.02.2016 cash of Rs. 12,44,000/- have been seized and that he failed to give an satisfactory account regarding the possession of the seized amount and that it is ascertain that the money came fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following we do not find any merit in the appeal: (A). The appellant has challenged the P.A.O., O.C. and the Impugned Order inter alia on the ground that the sum of Rs. 12,44,000/- shown as seizure made in the present case by the respondent for the purpose of Provisional Attachment was not seized in the present case and said cash was seized arising out of another FIR vide Chauliaganj PS Case no. 12 dated 30.01.2014 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 199/2014 and that in this FIR dated 30.01.2014 a seizure list dated 01.02.2016 was prepared reflecting therein that the amount of Rs. 12,44,000/- was seized in that case. (B). The second important issue raised by the appellant that the respondent has not assigned any „reason to believe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Case no. 12 dated 30.01.2014. The present appellant has been acquitted in PS. Case no. 12 dated 30.01.2014 corresponding to G.R. case no. 199/2014 by ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Asst. Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide judgment dated 24.03.2017 passed in S.T. no. 18/2017 in which there is a direction from the ld. Court to return seized cash, if any. Nowhere in the said judgment there is mention of seizure of Rs. 12,44,000/-. Even the seizure list on which the appellant is heavily relying on has not been exhibited as an evidence for prosecution. It is seen from the copy of the judgment of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Asst. Sessions Judge, Cuttack that the said amount of Rs. 12,44,000/- has never been exhibited as a material object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said judgments cited by the appellant, the PAO, the OC and the impugned order. The said judgments have explained the expression „reason to believe‟ in the context of the respective Acts and we are respectfully agree with the views expressed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and High Court in the aforesaid judgments. But the same are not applicable in the present case in view of the fact that the respondent has sufficiently explained the reason to believe that why the said amount is required to be attached under Section 5(1) of PMLA, 2002. It is not denied by the appellant that the aforesaid amount has been seized from the possession of the Appellant, secondly, the said amount is reflected in the FIR No. 27/2016 and the charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
