APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI FPA-PMLA-2922/PTN/2019 Rina Kumari … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Patna … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the appellant : Mr. Anand Nandan, Mr. Hassan Zubair Waris, Advs.

For the respondent : Mr. Priyank Khattar, Adv.

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

FINAL ORDER

26.11.2024 FPA-PMLA-2922/PTN/2019 By this appeal 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 18.09.2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated

31.03.2018.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of Section 5 and 8 of the Act of 2002 and even principle of natural justice. The land of the appellant bearing Khata No.58-old, 47-old, 44-old, 49-old, 261- new,Khasra No. 195-old, 199-old, 200-old, 233-new, Mauza-Rampur rajwa, Thana-Hasanpur, Circle office-Hasanpur, Sub Registry off-

Rosera, Distt. Samastipur, Bihar has been attached while the said property was purchased by her from Shri Bimlesh Kumar under a registered Sale Deed. The appellant was not given an opportunity of hearing by the Adjudicating Authority. Thus, not only the principle of natural justice was violated but mandate of Section 8(1) has also been flouted. The appellant should have been given an opportunity of hearing to demonstrate the source to acquire the property aforesaid. It is more so when the appellant has nothing to do with the commission of crime and the accused therein. Therefore, the prayer is made to set aside the order qua the property referred to above with remand of the case to allow the appellant an opportunity of hearing to demonstrate her case before the Adjudicating Authority.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent contested the appeal. It is submitted that from the record of the Sub-Registrar, the land in question was found in the name of Rajendra Yadav. The attachment order was issued accordingly followed by the order of the Adjudicating Authority. It is not brought to the notice of the respondent or the Adjudicating Authority that the land in question has been sold by Rajendra Yadav to Shri Bimlesh Kumar and thereupon it came to the appellant. In any case, the property has been acquired out of the proceeds of crime by accused Ashok Yadav and the appellant is none else but the second wife of Ashok Yadav. Thus, the property has been rightly attached.

4. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record carefully.

5. The perusal of records shows that the property in question was transferred by Rajendra Yadav to Shri Bimlesh Kumar under a registered sale deed in the year 2013 itself followed by sale deed in favour of the appellant by Shri Bimlesh Kumar in the year 2017. It seems that endorsement of sale of property in question was not made in the office of Sub-Registrar and, therefore, the respondent did not cause notice to the appellant while seeking confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order. The documents available on record showthat the property in the name of the appellant was purchased by her through a sale deed and thus as per Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002, the appellant was having a right of hearing because she is not only in possession of the property but acquired it under a registered sale deed. Whether the property is out of the proceeds of crime or through appellant’s own source is to be determined and for that while causing interference in the impugned order qua the property referred to above and otherwise Item No. 17 of the Table given in the impugned order, the order is set aside to that extent with remand of the case to the Adjudicating Authority for providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The parties would remain present before the Adjudicatin