ORDER

27.11.2024

The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short, the Act of 2002) to challenge the order dated 28.12.2021 confirming the provisional attachment order dated 12.01.2021.

2. Three immovable properties worth of Rs. 4,87,00,000/- have been attached.

3. It is a case where an FIR was registered for the offence under section 120-B read with section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A of IPC and section 13 (2) read with section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant M/s Sunkkalp Creation Private Limited, Mumbai & Others. The ECIR was then recorded on 05.12.2012 by the Enforcement Directorate. In the investigation, it was found that 13 forged Vishesh Krishi and Gram Udyog Yojana licences (VKGUYL) were taken from M/s Reliance Industries Limited by the appellant M/s Sunkkalp Creations Private Limited. It was in conspiracy with Shri Piyush Viramgama of M/s Bansi Overseas & Krish Overseas, Rajkot with the ulterior motive to mis-use those VKUGY licenses.

4. It was revealed that 13 licenses were used to create forged licenses. It was in criminal conspiracy that Sh. Niyaz Ahmed, who procured DGFT stationery from one Chander, a suspended employee of Central Licensing Authority, DGFT, New Delhi. It was to prepare forged license and in the process of forging the licences, the words “Exchange Control copy” printed on the top right hand side of the licenses were erased and over-written with the words “Customs Purpose Only”. The details contained in the original licenses were replicated on the forged licenses. The port of registration was changed in the forged license. It was made Mangalore Sea in place of JNPT, Mumbai. The signature of the DGFT officer/FTDOs were also forged apart from post rubber stamps affixed on the reverse side of the licences. In similar manner, many other alteration were made to create forged licenses.

5. The licenses were to seek exemption of custom duty of a sum of Rs. 6.95 crores. Details of the criminal act of the appellant and others have been referred in the impugned order. We are not referring to the facts because limited argument was raised by the counsel for the appellant to challenge the impugned order. It is not going on the facts pertaining to the criminal act but was in reference to section 5 (3) of the Act of 2002. It was submitted that while the attachment order was passed on 12.01.2021, the confirmation was made after a period of 180 days, i.e. on 28.12.2021. The period of 180 days provided under section 5 (3) of the Act of 2002 expired on 12.07.2021 itself. On the expiry of period of 180 days from the date of the order of attachment, if confirmation is not made, the attachment would lapse. In the instant case, admittedly the confirmation of the attachment order is beyond a period of 180 days. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on the aforesaid ground itself.

6. The other ground was that property attached by the respondent is a joint property. The entire property has been attached ignoring the joint ownership and without a notice to the joint holder of the properties. Thus, on the aforesaid ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

7. The appellant did not raise any other issue to the question the impugned order despite an opportunity rather he was called upon to raise any other issue pleaded in the appeal or any other legal issue, but the counsel for the appellant restricted his argument limited to issues referred above and accordingly the counsel for the respondent was called to contest the appeal.

8. The counsel for the respondent contested the appeal on both the grounds urged by the appellant. It was submitted that the provisional attachment order would not lapse despite its confirmation after a period of 180 days because of Covid -19.

9. The period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 has been excluded by the Apex Court for termination of proceeding in Suo decided Moto Writ Petition (C)