Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 461
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ, Shri V. Anandarajan, Member
Shri Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai – Respondent
FPA-PMLA-6557/MUM/2023 | FPA-PMLA-6558/MUM/2023 | FPA-PMLA-6559/MUM/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Siddhesh Bhole, Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Mr. Kartik Pillay
For the Respondents: Ms. Nidhi Raman, Mr. Akash Mishra
Burden of proof lies on appellants to show legitimate income sources; failure leads to property attachment as proceeds of crime.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 26 - Three appeals challenging the confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order by the Adjudicating Authority on grounds of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. (Paras 1-30)
(B) Burden of Proof - The appellants failed to prove that the assets were acquired through legitimate sources, leading to the attachment of properties as proceeds of crime. (Paras 25-30)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were alleged to have amassed properties valuing Rs. 4,44,86,037/- disproportionately during their tenure as public servants based on bribes taken in their capacity.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no evidence to establish the legitimacy of the income claimed by the appellants.
Issues: Whether the properties were acquired from legitimate income sources or proceeds of crime?
Ratio Decidendi: The appellants must provide proof of income origins; failure to do so results in properties being attached as illegal gains.
Result: The appeal fails and is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. burden of proof under pmla. (Para 1 , 6 , 18) |
| 2. corruption allegations and asset disproportion. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. main contention on known sources of income. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 4. failure to prove legitimate income. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
FINAL ORDER
09.07.2025 FPA-PMLA-6557-6559/MUM/2023 By batch of three appeals under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act , 2002 (in short ‘the Act of 2002’), a challenge has been made to the order dated
01.08.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 23.02.2023.
Brief facts of the case:
2. On a complaint filed by one Jitendra Ganjan Joshi, a case was registered by Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Raigad on 25.02.2014 against Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek (appellant herein), the then Deputy Director, Public Works Department, Karjat, Raigad for the offence under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988.
3. It was alleged by Jitendra Ganjan Joshi that he approached the appellant Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek for putting hoardings on both sides of the Highway for advertisement of his hotel “ANTRA RESTRAUNT”. He made an application for the aforesaid. The appellant Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek demanded Rs.25,000/- for granting necessary permission. The amount aforesaid was not towards the license fee or to process the application but a bribe.
4. The complainant informed that he is working as Contractor. He met appellant Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek on number of occasions when he agreed to extend favour to the complainant to give works contract to him subject to payment of Rs.5,00,000/-. Since the complainant was not interested to pay the bribe money, he approached ACB, Raigad and lodged the complaint against the accused. He negotiated the bribe amount to Rs.20,000/- for putting hoardings. Appellant Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek was apprehended red handed while accepting the amount aforesaid. The ACB raided the office, residential premises and other premises of the appellant Girish Kumar Chandrabhan Pareekh. The ECIR was then recorded on 28.03.2014. The statements under Section 50(2) and 50(3) of the Act of 2002 were recorded, elaborating the modus operandi of generation of the proceeds of crime and deployment thereof.
5. During further investigation, it was revealed that the appellant Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek has acquired total property worth of Rs.5,72,34,127/- during his service. The total expenditure during the period was Rs.1,07,16,670/. The total income during the relevant period was Rs.2,34,64,760/- thus an amount of Rs.4,44,86,037/- was found disproportionate to the known sources of income. The appellant Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek had acquired property 190% more to his income. He otherwise misappropriated his position and authority as a public servant and made assets worth of Rs.4,44,86,037/- which is more than the income during the check period February, 1980 till March, 2014. The Provisional Attachment Order was accordingly passed by the respondents to attach the proceeds of crime or the property equivalent to the value of proceeds, which has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and aggrieved by the said order, the appeals have been preferred.
Arguments of counsel for the appellants:
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that despite disclosure of source of income to acquire the properties, the respondents not only ignored it but the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order unmindfully and thus interference in the impugned order be made.
7. It was submitted that as per the allegation against the appellant Girishkumar Chandrabhan Pareek, the disproportionate asset is shown to be of Rs.4,44,86,037/- whereas the ACB had attached gold weighing 18.063.9 gms worth of Rs.4,69,23,197/-. The Enforcement Directorate thereafter attached 11 immovable properties worth of Rs.4,20,32,000/- vide the order dated 23.02
