9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttached. Since the Special Court has initiated the proceedings in the present case and taken cognizance of the same, it is my considered view that the Special Court has to decide the case including the offence of money laundering as discussed above, which in any case only the Special Court can decide and not the Appellate Tribunal. The scheme of things as it exists under the PML Act shows that it is the same property which can be provisionally attached, thereafter this attachment can be confirmed by the adjudicating authority, that the order with regard to the same property would become final after an order of confiscation is passed by the Special Court (Section 8(3)(b), or released or restored as per Section 8(6) or Section 8(8) second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground that the offences committed by Shri Bharat Yadav have already been tried by the Session Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate and in both these cases he has been acquitted. Hence, once there is no scheduled offence, they stated, there cannot be proceeds of crime and therefore the attachment of the properties which have been held to be proceeds of crime is liable to be set aside and the attachment released. They relied on the following judgments: i. Judgment dated 06.06.2018 passed by this Hon‟ble Tribunal in FPA/1620/BNG/2017 ii. Judgment dated 06.06.2018 passed by this Hon‟ble Tribunal in FPA/1496/BNG/2016 iii. Judgment dated 06.06.2018 passed by this Hon‟ble Tribunal in FPA/1465/BNG/2016 iv. Judgment date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... back into the economy .. Section 44 is very important in that the Section provides for the trial of a schedule offence and (emphasis added) the offence of money laundering together by the same Special Court, which is to try such offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure as if it were a court of sessions. 4. From the facts of the case, it is indisputable that the Court of Additional District and Session Judge, Special Court, Munger and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger while acquitting Shri Yadav in the said two offences have not at all examined Section 4 of PMLA alongwith the schedule offence as mandated under Section 44 of PMLA and upheld by the Supreme Court. Hence, it cannot be said that the acquittal has attained finalit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held in his name or in the name of his family members and have not submitted any details thereof while the onus was on them, the information that was culled out from the ITRs of the appellant and from the Income Tax department showed the income of Bharat Yadav to be ₹ 21,87,410/- which if added with the income of the construction companies i.e. M/s. Jai Maa Kali Construction, M/s. Rani Construction and M/s. Khushboo Construction comes to only ₹ 38,66,773/- which is much less compared to the total value of the moveable and immoveable properties of ₹ 4,23,61,990/- for which they have not given any explanation. In his written submissions submitted after the hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent has also mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Government. Section 8(6) further states where on conclusion of a trial under this Act the Special Court finds that the offence of money laundering has not taken place or the property is not involved in money laundering, it shall order release of such property to the person entitle to receive it. Section 8(8) second proviso reads provided further that the Special Court may, if it thinks fit, consider the claim of the claimant for the purposes of the restoration of such properties during the trial of the case in such manner as may be prescribed. Hence, it is the Special Court only who can adjudge on the offence of money laundering and the money laundering necessarily relates to the proceeds of crime‟ only. 8. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
