ORDER

27.11.2024 By this appeal, a challenge has been made to the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the provisional attachment order dated 05.12.2019.

It is a case where an FIR having CR No. 34/2009 was registered on 19.06.2009 for the schedule offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The ECIR was then recorded on 30.10.2009 against Mr. Manoj Dubey and others finding their involvement for not only in commission of schedule offence but the offence of Money-Laundering under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (in short “the Act of 2002”). In pursuance to the FIR dated 19.06.2009, a charge-sheet was filed by the Economic OffencesWing (EOW)

Mumbai Unit.

The respondent recorded the statement of the appellant and others under section 50 of the Act of 2002 during the course of investigation. In the investigation, involvement of not only Mr. Manoj Dubey but S/Shri ManojRajendra Prasad Dubey, Ajit Suresh Mantri, Sanjay Shambhunath Mishra, Preeti Dubey w/o Manoj Dubey,YogeshBrijbhulan Dubey, and many others was found and while filing the charge-sheet by EOW, the offences under Section 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) and 34 of IPC were also found apart from offence under Section 420 of the IPC.

The allegations against the accusedwas for charging Rs.3-4 lakhs from the students to offer course of Merchant Navy and on completion of the course to provide job to them. The accused could not keep their promise and cheated number of students. They collected around Rs. 7 crores from the students under the guise to provide job after completion of the course of Merchant Navy. The promises were found to be false and thereby number of students were cheated at the instance of the accused. The investigation revealed that money was collected from 165 students and was initially deposited in the Bank Accounts but subsequently withdrawn and utilized for the personal purposes. The impugned order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority after giving description of many companies in whose names the money collected from the students was deposited using the banking channel and thereafter the amount was withdrawn for personal use and laundered by the accused and others.

So far as the appellant, Ms. Preeti Dubeyis concerned, she has also been named as accused. It is with other accused which includes her husband, Mr. Manoj Dubey.

The Ld. Counsel for the appellant press the appeal mainly in reference to the date of acquisition of the property attached by the respondent. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Flat No. 612 in Green View,Malwani, Malad (W), Mumbai was acquired by the appellant in the year 2006. It was much prior to commission of crime thus could not have been taken towards the proceeds of crime. The purchase of the property was for a sum of Rs. 9,70,000/-, while according to the respondent, fair market value is of Rs. 1,16,90,000/-. Since the appellant purchased the property much prior to commission of crime and by her own sources, it could not have been attached by the respondent considering it to be “proceeds of crime”.

It is stated that appellant was initially working as a Beautician in the office of SubhashGhai, Mumbai, where she worked from 1999 andwas receiving Rs.8000/- per month. The purchase of flat in the year 2006 was out of herhard earned money. The period of working of the appellant was also given which is from August, 1999 to November, 2005 where she was last designated as Receptionist in the studio at Andheri (West), Mumbai. The amount accumulated out of the salaries was used for purchase of property which has erroneously been taken as“proceeds of crime”. Thus the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

The Counsel for the appellant, further, submitted that the appellant was got married with Mr. Manoj Dubey, co- accused, in the year 2007 and before marriage, she was employed as Receptionist in M/s Searock Consultancy Private Limited from December, 2005 where her husband, Mr. Manoj Dub