APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI MP-PMLA-13811/LKW/2023(Misc.)

MP-PMLA-6891/LKW/2020 (Stay)

FPA-PMLA-3419/LKW/2020 Shri Sunny Yadav … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv.

Ms. Deepti Verma, Adv. Mr. Sawnya China, Adv.

For the Respondent : Ms. Nattasha Garg, Adv.

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

ORDER

08.04.2025 This appeal challenges the order dated 12/12/2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the attachment of the movable and immovable assets in the hands of the appellant.

2. It is a case where an FIR was registered for the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the main accused Yadav Singh. The allegation was involving him and family members holding dis-proportionate assets to the known sources of income to the tune of Rs. 23,15,41,514/-.

3. The provisional attachment order was earlier issued for the properties worth of Rs. 20,38,71,606/- against others than the appellant. It was vide PAO number 06/2017 dated

21.12.2017 and PAO number 07/2018 dated 08.05.2018.

4. The further investigation revealed properties even in the hands of the appellant thus attachment of the remaining proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 2,76,69,908/- was made. 5. The appellant is the son of Yadav Singh and accordingly properties in the hands of the appellant was also taken towards the dis-proportionate assets in the hands of the accused causing an offence under the Act of 1988.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that only for the reason that appellant resides with the main accused under one roof, the properties in his name of the appellant has been attached. Those properties were acquired by the appellant from his own sources thus, could not have been added to determine the dis-proportionate assets in the hands of Yadav Singh and in any case there was no reason to attach the properties in the hands of the appellant and accordingly challenge to the impugned order has been made.

7. The counsel for the appellant made a reference to the proceedings before the Apex Court where FIR and the charge sheet were challenged invoking the Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

8. It was in the hands of Kusum Lata & Others Versus Union of India and not by the appellant. There, the Apex Court passed an interim order on the proceedings in pursuance to the FIR and the charge sheet.

9. It is further submitted that the order of the Adjudicating Authority in reference to the earlier provisional attachment order was challenged and is subject matter of the appeal before this Tribunal where an interim order was passed to restrain the respondent to take coercive action against the appellants therein.

10. So far as Sunny Yadav, the appellant in this case is concerned, he was not made party to the earlier order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, rather the provisional attachment order was passed later on and has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. In ignorance of the proceedings before the Apex Court and the interim order passed by this Tribunal, though in reference to the accused and another persons and not at the instance of the appellant. In any case, it is submitted that when appellant had disclosed the source to acquire the properties, then there was no basis to attach.

11. Prayer was accordingly made to cause interference in the impugned order.

12. The counsel for the appellant did not raise any other argument though opportunity for it was given by the Tribunal.

13. The counsel restricted his argument to the extent referred above.

14. The appeal was contested by the respondents and therein elaborate arguments were made which would be referred while recording the finding in reference to the argument of the counsel for the appellant to avoid repetition of the same facts.

15. We have considered the rival submission made by the