9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucted by the proceeds of crime generated by her husband. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajiv Chanana Vs Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement [2014 (10) TMI 436 - DELHI HIGH COURT] had also held that in absence of scheduled offense, the attachment of property cannot continue. The property as described herein above is released from attachment - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - FPA-PMLA-287/BNG/2011 (ECIR/63/BZ/2009, PAO No. 3/2011 and OC No. 94 of 2011) - - - Dated:- 31-12-2014 - Anil Kumar, J. (Chairman), Arun Kumar Agarwal and Dr. Rabi Narayan Dash, Members For the Appellant : Kirit S. Javali, Advocate. For the Respondents : Bipul Kumar, Advocate and A.C. Singh, D.L.A. JUDGMENT 1. The Appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 27th July, 2011 passed in O.C No. 94 of 2011 confirming the Provisional Attachment order No. 3/2011 passed by the Respondent in ECIR/63/BZ/2009 attaching the properties situated on site No. 16/2 and 16/3, Old Katha No. 207, Halegeboderahalli Village, Kengeri, Hobli, Bangalore on the ground that the said property was acquired by the Appellant from the proceeds of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IPC. Since these could generate proceeds of crime and are scheduled offences under the PMLA, the investigation under PMLA had been initiated. From the police records and the investigation under PMLA it was inferred that Sh. Lokesh @ Mulama, the husband of the appellant had acquired proceeds of crime. He projected the same as untainted property through Appellant, who is wife of Sh. Lokesh @ Mulama. During investigation the statement of Mrs. P. Vijayalakshmi, Appellant was recorded on 18.01.2010 under section 50(2) of the PMLA wherein she stated that the property in question was purchased by her from Sh. M. Shankar and Sh. M. Raghunath for a total consideration of ₹ 32,20,000/- under the sale deed dated 02.05.2008 and its rectification deed dated 1.12.2008. She further stated that the aforesaid amount was paid to the seller by cash. She further stated that she had been constructing a house during the last two years. Sh. Muniraju, was the contractor who carried out construction in 8000 sq. ft. in three storey and that the construction was yet to be completed. Appellant further stated that she was doing the business of civil works by under taking building contracts and engaging t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. The agricultural land was shown as worth ₹ 3,28,854/-. The agricultural income of ₹ 1,46,215/- allegedly obtained from that property during 2008-09 was inferred to be unrealistic and not believable. 8. Shri Muniraju, purported Sub-contractor of the Appellant who was allegedly taking 60% of the profit from the Civil Contract Works, had admittedly no bank account. Contradictory to his allegations, he rather stated that his earnings from Civil Contract Works ranged Between ₹ 6,000/- to ₹ 7,000/- per month only. If ₹ 7,000/- was the 60% of the profit, the share (40%) of profit of the Appellant would be ₹ 4,640/- only per month. Accordingly, her annual income from the purported Civil Contracts could be only ₹ 4,640 X 12 = ₹ 55,680. Even as per appellant's Income and Expenditure Statement for the financial year 2004-05, her annual income from civil works was shown as ₹ 48,989/-. Whereas, Shri Lokesh Mulama and the appellant had made a false claim that Appellant had an annual income of ₹ 4 lakhs from Civil Contract Works. In the circumstances, it was prima facie inferred that the appellant was not engaged in any Civil C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he applied against him are scheduled offences under the PMLA. All the pleas raised by the Appellant were disbelieved and it was ordered that the attachment of the property shall continue during the pendency of the proceedings relating to the scheduled offence before a court; and will become final after the guilt of the husband would be proved in trial court and order of such trial court becomes final. The Adjudicating Authority thus passed the order dated 11th July, 2011 in OA No. 94 of 2011 which is challenged by the Appellant in the above noted appeal. 12. Along with the appeal, the appellant had also filed an application of stay pursuant to notice dated 27.04.2011 which was issued to the Appellant. The Appeal was taken up for hearing, however, the application for interim stay was dismissed by order dated 2nd November, 2011 by this Tribunal. Though the time was granted to the respondent to file the reply to appeal by order dated 26th July, 2013, however, no reply was filed by the respondent. 13. On 9th October, 2013, it was contended by the counsel for the Appellant that the husband of the Appellant has been acquitted in all the cases on the basis of which it was alleged th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... III of the PMLA which is reproduced here for the sake of reference: 5. Attachment of property involved in money- laundering (1) Where the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorized by the Director for the purposes of this section, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that- (a) any person is in possession of any proceeds of crime; and (b) such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with confiscation of such proceeds of crime under this Chapter, He may, by order in writing, provisionally attach such property for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of the order, in such manner as may be prescribed: PROVIDED that no such order of attachment shall be made unless, in relation to the scheduled offence, a report has been forwarded to a Magistrate under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or a complaint has been filed by a person authorized to investigate the offence mentioned in that Scheduled, before a Magistrate or court for taking cognizance of the scheduled offence, as the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
