APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

1. MP-PMLA-9118/BBS/2021 Stay FPA-PMLA-4370/BBS/2021 Ashok Kumar Rout … Appellant

2. MP-PMLA-11538/BBS/2023 Stay MP-PMLA-9127/BBS/2021 Stay FPA-PMLA-4384/BBS/2021 Smt. Sasmita Dhal … Appellant

3. MP-PMLA-9128/BBS/2021 Stay FPA-PMLA-4385/BBS/2021 Sri Deepak Kumar Tripathy … Appellant

4. MP-PMLA-9129/BBS/2021 Stay FPA-PMLA-4386/BBS/2021 Smt. Tapaswini Satapathy … Appellant

5. MP-PMLA-9130/BBS/2021 Stay FPA-PMLA-4387/BBS/2021 Smt. Subasini Devi … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, … Respondent Bhubaneswar.

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Devashish Panda,Adv.

Mr. Braja Bandhu Pradhan, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Kshitiz Aggarwal, Adv.

CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI V. ANANDARAJAN : MEMBER

ORDER

20.03.2025 By the batch of appeals under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short) the Act of 2002, a challenge to the order dated 09/11/2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the attachment order number

06/2021 dated 31.03.2021 has been made.

Brief facts of the case

2. It is a case where following five FIRs were registered by Saheed Nagar Police Station, Bhubaneswar, Odisha against Sri Triveni Kumar Mohanty and others.

(i) FIR No. 397/10, dated 27.12.2010 (ii) FIR No. 145/11, dated 28.04.2011 (iii) FIR No. 176/11, dated 26.05.2011 (iv) FIR No. 177/11, dated 26.05.2011 and lastly (v) FIR No. 09/12, dated 15.01.2012.

3. The following 04 charge sheet in pursuance to the FIRs were filed from time to time in the year 2011:-

(i) Charge Sheet No. 236 dated 13.08.2011 (ii) Charge Sheet No. 325 dated 29.10.2011 (iii) Charge Sheet No. 181 dated 22.06.2011 (iv) Charge Sheet No. 240 dated 13.08.2011

4. The allegation against Triveni Kumar Mohanty, Managing Director of Stock Group of companies and others was for ruling out various alluring schemes and investment plans and collected huge amount of money from innocent public in the name of M/s Star Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., and other associate Companies/Firms namely M/s New Era Resources Pvt. Ltd., M/s Star Yogic and Leisure Ltd., M/s Star Concrete Pvt. Ltd. etc. by making false promise to provide residential houses in and outside Bhubaneswar as well as assuring high rate of interest.

5. Reference of different schemes floated by the Company was given apart from the name of various companies floated by the main accused. Based on the aforesaid, ECIR was recorded by the respondents followed by investigation and thereupon an order for provisional attachment of the properties was made which has been challenged by the appellant on legal grounds. The following legal grounds were raised during the course of the argument.

Issue number 1

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that five FIRs were registered in the year 2010 to 2012, however, no charge sheet has been filed even after lapse of several years, therefore there remains no predicate offence against the appellant which otherwise cannot be presumed for recording of ECIR and for passing attachment order. A reference of para 109 of the judgement in the case of Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC Online SC929 was given with a prayer to cause interference in the order on first ground itself.

Issue number 2

7. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that at the time of registration of the FIR in the year 2010, 2011 and 2012, the offence under section 420 was not a predicate offence.

It was made a scheduled offence by the Amending Act of 2013. The ECIR could not have been recorded without a predicate offence and in this case, the ECIR was recorded on 20.06.2012, i.e. prior to the amendment in the Act of 2002 to bring offence under section 420 IPC. Thus, without there being a scheduled offence, the attachment of the properties is illegal.

Issue number 3

8. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that section 24 of the Act of 200