IMPORTANT POINT
Money Laundering – Provisional Attachment Order – Formation of opinion must bear a proximate and live nexus to purpose of protecting interest of Government revenue.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.—Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Miss Pooja Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Das assisted by Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the provisional attachment order No.5 of 2021 dated 30.06.2021, contained in Annexure-2 passed by respondent no.2 by which in purported exercise of powers interalia under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act, 2002”) has provisionally attached the assets/properties of the petitioner being land measuring 2.49/1.6 acres situated at R.S. Khatian No.287 (Old 90), Dag No. 614 (old 37/4), J.L. No.731, Mauza Jungle Khash, Police Station and Sub Registry Office, Jhargram, District West Midnapore, West Bengal along with a building/Hotel standing thereon (Kaushalya Heritage) in lieu of proceeds of crime to the extent of Rs.1,08,95,583/- for a period of 180 days.

3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the CBI, ACB Ranchi had registered FIR No. RC-19(A)/09-R dated 22.10.2009 for the offence allegedly committed under Section 120 (B) read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against three accused persons, in which, the petitioner-company has also been arrayed as accused no.3. In the FIR, it has been alleged that one Baleshwar Baitha and Heeraman Mahto both Executive Engineers, Road Construction Department, Daltonganj, during period 2004-06 entered criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and with the petitioner-company. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, the petitioner-company submitted false/bogus invoices showing a procurement of bitumen for the execution of contractual works awarded to them, which caused wrongful gain to the contractor and official concerned and corresponding huge wrongful loss to the Government of Jharkhand. The CBI submitted Chargesheet No.2 dated 31.01.2011 under Sections 120 (B) read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against the petitioner-company. He further submits that on 08.05.2004, Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued and the work was allotted to the petitioner-company on 19.07.2004 for strengthening for Parwa-Garhwa Road. Pursuant thereto an agreement was entered between the petitioner-company and the Department on 19.08.2004 and supplementary agreement was entered on 19.10.2004. He also submits that the property has been attached for 26 numbers of forged invoices which according to respondent no.2 comes to sum of Rs.1,08,95,583/-. He submits that on this background the attachment order has been passed for the property, in question. He draws attention of the Court to Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which defines the meaning of proceeds of crime. By way of referring this Section, he submits that as per this Section 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 or where such property is taken or held outside the country, that can also be attached. He further submits that the attachment order has been passed under Section 5(1) of the Act, 2002. According to him, there is no concealment on behalf of the petitioner in light of Section 5(1)(b) and there is no binding by the concerned authority to the tune of amount, which has been shown as proceeds of crime. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joti Parshad v. State of Haryana, reported in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 497.

4. Paragraph 5 of the