9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r his involvement in the case cannot be accepted. It is also that they had not disclosed the source of income. The chances of transfer of the property remains immediately on registration of the FIR and ECIR. Thus, whenever there is likelihood of transfer of the property, the attachment can be made. In the instant case, the appellant has not stated that he would not transfer the property till conclusion of the trial and if he makes a statement to this effect, then he needs to clarify how he would be affected by the attachment when properties can be used by him without its alienation. There are substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent. In fact, it would be impossible to produce the material to show preparation for transfer of property. If the accused would be intent to transfer the property, it can be done within no time. Finding no merit in the issues raised by the appellants, appeal would fail and is dismissed. - MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHAIRMAN AND BALESH KUMAR, MEMBER For the Appellant : Sidhartha Mishra, and Debasis Swain, Advs. For the Respondent : N.K. Matta, S.P.P. and Aaditya Raj Sharma, Adv. ORDER FPA-PMLA-3028-3029/BBS/2019 1. By these two app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and seized huge cache of arms and ammunitions from these premises. As per the charge-sheets filed by the police, the arms and ammunitions were given by Dhal Samanta brothers to these associates for safe custody which were used for extortion and other illegal activities. 5. It is also that many complainants registered their complaints against Dhal Samanta brothers like one M/s Tantia Construction Ltd, which was executing contract work at Cuttack with a project cost of around Rs. 630 crore under Odisha Water Supply Sewage Board. The complaint was that some armed associates of Dhal Samanta brothers came and threatened not to continue the work without their permission. Initially, M/s Bapu Kahali was given the supply order by M/s Tantia Construction Ltd for supply of stone chips and sand, who was threatened and asked to stop supply of material by the group headed by Shri Sushanta Dhal Samanta and Shri Sushil Dhal Samanta supported by one Mr Sudhir Kumar Choudhury. The supply order was taken for M/s Chetana Agency (a partnership firm) of appellant Nirmal Chandra Rout who is also a close associate of Dhal Samanta brothers and thereafter the supply was made by M/s Metaphor Trans Corporati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issues referred to above, the counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned attachment order was passed in violation of Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short 'the Act of 2002'). The second proviso to Section 5(1) has been effected by the respondent while attaching the properties of the appellants but it is without putting any material in conformity to the requirement of Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002. In view of the above, the impugned order deserves to be set aside even on the legal ground, apart from the factual position as no case is made out against the appellants. In fact, the appellant has been implicated in several cases for commission of offence only because he was having a long friendship with the main accused. Merely because the appellant was knowing the main accused does not mean that he is also involved in the crime. In fact, applicant is having regular business and in the course of his business, he made supplies to M/s Tantia Construction Ltd. The supply of the material i.e. Chips and sand to M/s Tantia Construction Ltd. cannot be termed to be a predicate offence or the offence under the Act of 2002. Thus, for the afores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar Dhal Samanta through Tapan Routray (one of the accused and common friend of both the persons). He further stated that his partnership concern in the name of M/s Chetana Agency was having business transactions with M/s M T Associates and M/s Methaphor Trans Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Both the entities were controlled and managed by Sushil Kumar Dhal Samanta and Sushanta Kumar Dhal Samanta. 15. On scrutiny of the bank account in the name of M/s Chetna Agency, which was in the partnership of both the appellants, a total of Rs. 47,68,122/- was found credited in the bank account of M/s Chetana Agency from M/s Metaphor Trans Corporation Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2013 and Rs. 2,01,53,000/- was debited from the bank account of M/s Chetana Agency to M/s Methaphor Trans Corporation Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2014, which was a family-run company of Dhal Samanta brothers. From the other material, it was found that M/s Chetana Agency of the appellants benefitted from their criminal activities. It was given contract of supply of materials and labour to M/s Tantia Construction Ltd. after displacing one of the supplier Shri Bapu Kahali forcibly, who was actually supplying the material to M/s Tantia Constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is only required to find a prima facie case against the appellant. 19. We have referred certain facts to find out a prima facie case against the appellant and we record our satisfaction to it. It is a fact that the appellant Nirmal Chandra Rout had disclosed a very meagre income of Rs. 5,74,880/- in the Assessment Years 2008-09 to 201213 but invested in many properties to the tune of more than Rs. 20,87,700/-, apart from his investment in the construction of one-storied building. No document was produced to prove loan to purchase the properties of the worth more than his income. Even the wife, who is also appellant before us in whose name some of the properties have been purchased has stated that she is a housewife and money was taken by way of loans, however could not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. Accordingly, argument of the appellant that no material or evidence has been shown for his involvement in the case cannot be accepted. It is also that they had not disclosed the source of income. 20. The counsel for the appellants raised the legal issue. It was submitted that the attachment was caused in violation of Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002. For ready ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as no apprehension of transfer of the property so as to be attached immediately. The impugned order of provisional attachment does not disclose that if the properties are not immediately attached, it may be alienated by the appellant to frustrate any proceeding under the Act. 22. The argument aforesaid has been contested by the respondent. It is submitted that the attachment was made to save the proceeds otherwise it would get frustrated if the properties are transferred. It is submitted that the word 'likely' has been used under second proviso to Section 5(1) which means that there are chances of transfer of the property. The chances of transfer of the property remains immediately on registration of the FIR and ECIR. Thus, whenever there is likelihood of transfer of the property, the attachment can be made. In the instant case, the appellant has not stated that he would not transfer the property till conclusion of the trial and if he makes a statement to this effect, then he needs to clarify how he would be affected by the attachment when properties can be used by him without its alienation. 23. We find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
