9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of value given in section 2(zb) of the Act, 2002, it is to be taken as on the date of its acquisition or possession, as the case may be. There are no reasons to cause interference in the interim order passed by the Adjudicating Authority though it kept the legal issue open with liberty to the Appellant to raise it appropriately but Tribunal was requested to decide the legal issue. It is observed that the cross examination of the witness may be part of the principle of natural justice but it cannot be sought for the sake of it and even in the case, issue for cross examination is not even made out. The proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority is otherwise to be completed within 180 days as per the provisions of the Act of 2002. The appeal is accordingly fails and dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent attached the property of value in excess to the proceeds of crime for the reasons that value of the attached property was not taken on the current market value as on the date of the attachment. The value of the attached property was taken as on the date of its acquisition many years back. The Respondent should not have the taken value of the property as on the date of attachment and in that case there would have no reasons to attach thirteen properties. The value of proceeds of crime is of Rs. 78,39,82,343/- but as against the aforesaid, the Respondent have attached the property worth of Rs. 216,84,36,000/-. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant gave reference to section 2(1)(u) & (zb) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (In short "the Act of 2002"). The provision defines "proceeds of crime" and "value" respectively. Definition has been referred to impress upon the Tribunal to give proper meaning to the word "value" defined in section 2(u) of the Act, 2002. The word "value" used therein should denote the market value of the property as on the date of the attachment. It cannot be the value of the property as o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so that factual and legal issue can be decided by the Adjudicating Authority. 10. However, the Appellant has now raised a legal issue at this stage. The short legal issue is regarding value of the property. 11. According to the Appellant, value of the property sought to be attached should be at the current market price on the date of attachment. As per the definition of word "value" given under section 2(1)(zb), the value of the property would be taken as on the date of acquisition. The prayer of the Appellant is to take a different meaning of word "value" then defined under the Act of 2002. 12. The argument is per say unsustainable as neither the Tribunal nor any Court can give different meaning to the word defined under the same enactment. The definition of word "value" given in section 2(zb) is very clear and thereby the Respondent have taken the value of the property as on the date of its acquisition. It is as per the provision of the Act, 2002. 13. The Counsel for the Appellant has referred press release where the value of the property was taken as on the date of the attachment. It is submitted press release nowhere indicate assessment of val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person, or if such date cannot be determined, the date on which such property is possessed by such person." 17. The "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property etc. According to the Appellant, the property so attached by the Respondent was not derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence but the value of such property. The value of the attached property has been taken as per section 2(1)(zb). It has been questioned by the Appellant. According to the Appellant, definition of "value" applied for the attachment of the property in question is not proper rather the meaning of word "value" of any such property should have been on the current market value for the purpose of attachment of the property on equivalent value to the proceeds of crime. The Respondent should not have applied the definition of the "value" given under section 2(1)(zb) of the Act for the purpose of attachment of the property. 18. We find that as per the defi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y unless is strict down by a Constitutional Court. 23. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the definition of "value" of the property was not deliberately worded to take it on current market price. It is to avoid any conflict in assessment of the property which may vary on assessment at market price. The "value" of the property is to be taken as on the date of its acquisition or possession. We find that the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent to be acceptable and otherwise this Tribunal or for that even any Court is not having jurisdiction to re-write the provision of a Statute. If we accept the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant for giving different meaning to the word "value" than defined under section 2(1) (zb) of the Act, it would be to re-write the provision going beyond our jurisdiction. 24. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant had tried to pursue this Tribunal to take different meaning of word "value" in the context it is required for giving proper interpretation to the provision of Act of 2002. The reference of the judgment in the case of Jagdish Chand Sapehia v. State of Himachal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ji Kalyanji, AIR 1965 SC 414 (Three Judges)). 34. In Macquarie Bank Limited v. Shilpi Cable Technologies Limited, (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 674, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the task of a Judge, when he looks at the literal language of the statute as well as the object and purpose of the statute, is not to interpret the provision as he likes but to interpret the provision keeping in mind the Parliament's language and the object that Parliament had in mind. 35. In K.P. Sudhakaran and another v. State of Kerala and others, (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 386, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once a statutory rule is made without providing any exceptions, it is not possible to carve out exceptions to such rule by judicial interpretation." 25. In para 33, it has been held that same word may mean one thing in one context and another in a different context but in para 31, it was categorically held that statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with respect to the other provision in the same Act, so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. In para 35, referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in K.P. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be taken as guides or precedents.' 27. As per the judgment supra, if the word is capable of one meaning alone then it must be adopted but if they are susceptible of wider import, we need to pay regard to what the statute or the particular piece of legislation had in view. In the instant case, definition of word "value" is not capable two meaning and more specifically the meaning taken by the Appellant. If we take meaning of word "value" to mean current market rate of the property then virtually we would substitute the provisions not permissible under the law. The definition of "value" given in section 2(zb) of the Act is unambiguous. The value of the property would be as it was on the date of its acquisition or the possession. Any other meaning may lead to ambiguity. It may even lead to serious dispute on the value of the property as would exist in this case where Appellant has taken valuation report from the valuer not accepted by the Respondents. 28. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also referred following judgments to support her arguments :-- (1) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 1 SCR 941. (2) K.L. Tripathi v. State B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we may clarify that certain press release of the Enforcement Directorate has been enclosed alongwith the Appeal to impress upon that even the Department is taking market value of the property as on the date of attachment thereby discrimination has been caused with the Appellant. The aforesaid has been clarified by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent. The press release does not indicate that the property attached therein was after taking its market value as on the date of attachment. Mere reference of the current value of the property does not mean attachment of the property taking its current market value. It is otherwise to be clarified that even if the Respondent had taken current market value of the property, as on the date of the attachment in few case, this Tribunal cannot perpetuate the illegality committed by the Department, if any. 32. In the light of the discussions made above, we do not find that a ground is made out to seek cross examination of the two officers. It is when cross examination of the officer is sought for valuation of the property attached and that too as on the date of attachment while as per the definition of "value" given in section 2(zb) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
