The main legal point established is that the scope of attachment and confiscation of assets under the PML Act extends to equivalent value of the proceeds of crime, and the court has the authority to direct release upon deposit of the attached amount by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by M/s Highstreet Enterprises (P) Limited for a direction upon the respondents to release the property admeasuring about 10 Kathas comprised within Khata No. 360 of Khewat No. 15 in RS Plot No. 1133 (Sub Plot No. 1133/A) at Misirgonda, Kanke Road, (PS No. 191) within the district of Ranchi.

2. Briefly stated, ECIR No. ECIR/RSZO/01/2015 was registered by the ED on 30th January 2015. Before that, on an allegation that the accused persons had secured allotment of a coal-block the CBI had registered RC/221/2014/E/0015 on 23rd July 2014 under sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. After the investigation, the CBI has submitted charge-sheet against M/s Domco Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors on 22nd December 2015. The petitioner-company has produced a document at page 81 of the supplementary affidavit which records name of the Directors of the petitioner-company. In the complaint filed by the ED under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short, PML Act), or the provisional attachment order dated 31st March 2018, or the confirmation order dated 17th September 2018, name of the Directors of the petitioner-company does not appear anywhere either as accused who have committed money-laundering or as having been involved in any manner whatsoever with commission of the offence under section 3 of the PML Act. Notwithstanding that, the subject-property has been attached by the ED for “value thereof” for an amount of Rs. 12 Lakhs.

3. On behalf of the petitioner-company, it is submitted that the subject-property was purchased by it through a registered sale-deed dated 15th June 2016 much before the provisional attachment order was passed on 31st March 2018 by the Deputy Director of the Enforcement Directorate at Ranchi. The petitioner-company or its Directors are not accused either in the cases filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, CBI) or the Directorate of Enforcement (in short, ED). Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner-company therefore submits that she is not questioning the legality of the provisional and final attachment orders and all that the petitioner-company wants is release of the subject-property which has been attached for “value thereof”, on deposit of the “value thereof” amount by the petitioner-company so that it can deal with the subject-property in whatever manner it wants. It is submitted that once the subject-property is released from attachment the petitioner-company can legally realise Rs.12 Lakhs from the seller so deposited by it and this is the reason the petitioner-company is not required to question the actions taken by the ED in course of the investigation.

4. In the context of the case pleaded by the petitioner-company, it is necessary to indicate that the definition of “property” under Clause (v) of section 2 of the PML Act provides that property can be of any description corporeal or non-corporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located. And, “attachment” as defined under section (2)(d) means prohibition of transfer, conversion, disposition or movement of property by an order issued under Chapter III.

5. The proceeds of crime in the case registered by the ED is an amount of Rs. 7 Crores paid by M/s Electrosteel Castings Ltd. to the accused persons which has been tendered through six cheques all dated 26th January 2004 and 7th February 2004. And, as noticed above, the subject-property which has been attached is not the proceeds of crime and the Directors of the petitioner-company are not involved in any transaction with respect to the proceeds of crime. This is also not a case pleaded by the ED that the subject-property was acquired by the petitioner-company from the proceeds of crime involved in ECIR.

6. The Adjudicating Authority has provided reaso