9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould neither be charged of committing a scheduled offence nor the offence of money laundering. Notwithstanding the above, the asset in his possession would be liable to be attached and confiscated in terms of the provisions of PMLA. The allegation against the respondent s husband was that he had amassed assets disproportionate to his sources of income. It was found that as on 10.10.2007 (end of the check period), the respondent s husband (Major Gen. Anand Kumar Kapoor) was in possession of assets to the extent of ₹5,51,92,598/-. These included both movable and immovable assets, either in his own name or in the name of the respondent. Three immovable properties of the respondent which are sought to be attached by the appellant were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RL.A. 801/2018 & CRL.MA. 29080/2018 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2019 - MR. VIBHU BAKHRU J. Appellant Through: Ms. Mallika Hiremath, Advocate and Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC. Respondent Through: Mr. Vivek Kohli, Mr. Nalin Talwar, Mr. Sunil Tyagi, Ms. Prerna Kohli, Ms. Yeshi Rinchhen, Mr. Mudit Gupta and Ms. Agashi Verma, Advs. O R D E R VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereafter PMLA ) impugning an order dated 13.04.2018 passed by the Appellate Tribunal (hereafter The Tribunal ). By the impugned order, the Tribunal had allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and had quashed the Provisional Attachment order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (the respondent), to the tune of ₹5,51,92,598/-. It was alleged that Major General Anand Kumar had acquired assets worth ₹3,37,02,592/-, which was disproportionate to his known sources of income. The respondent had abetted her husband in the commission of the crime regarding acquisition of disproportionate assets. 5. The chargesheet was filed before the Court of Ld. Special Judge-03 (PC Act)(CBI), Patiala House Courts and the Court took cognizance of the same. A charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988 (PC Act) was framed against the accused Major General Anand Kumar Kapur. A charge was framed against the respondent under Section 109 of the IPC read with Section 13(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the respondent: S. No. Particulars Value 1. Office Space bearing No. 408A, Vatika Towers, Gurgaon 9,32,125/- 2. Plot No. 264, Sector-52, Gurgaon. 13,46,294/- 3. Cottage No. 10, Devine Golf, Village Sadhora, Mashobra, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 38,81,357/- 9. On 30.11.2016, the Deputy Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi filed a complaint against the respondent and Sh. Anand Kumar under Section 5(5) of the PMLA. On 17.03.2017, the Adjudicating Authority, Enforcement Directorate confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceeds of crime in the hands of a person can be attached, notwithstanding that the person is not accused of any scheduled crime or the offence of money laundering. Plainly, if an asset which is derived by any person from a criminal activity is entrusted to another person, who is neither complicit in the criminal activity and is oblivious of the means by which the asset was acquired; he would neither be charged of committing a scheduled offence nor the offence of money laundering. Notwithstanding the above, the asset in his possession would be liable to be attached and confiscated in terms of the provisions of PMLA. 14. However, the said issue does not arise in the controversy involved in the present case; because, the three immovable prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces of income and therefore, cannot be considered as proceeds of crime. 15. Assets, to the extent of ₹2,22,04,290/-, have been directed to be confiscated and thus, there is no scope for the present proceedings on the basis that any of the remaining assets constitute proceeds of crime. It is relevant to note that no particular assets held by respondent or her husband were identified as an asset derived from any criminal activity. The nature of the charge did not warrant any such inquiry and the extent of disproportionate assets had been determined on the basis of the value of assets at the end of the check period less the value that could be accounted from the known sources of income. In view of the above, the contention that three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
