APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI FPA-PMLA-3763/DLI/2020 Hem Singh Bharana … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Dr. Shamsuddin, Sh. Anup Kumar Pandey, Ritagya Mishra, Sh. Dhanjay Singh, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Ritesh Agarwal, Adv.(For ED)

Sh. Priyanshi Sharma, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI V. ANANDARAJAN : MEMBER

ORDER

31.07.2025 By this appeal under section 26 for the PMLA Act 2002, a challenge has been made to the order dated 17.03.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the provisional attachment order.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned provisional attachment order involves many properties. However, so far as the appellant is concerned, his two bank accounts have been attached.

3. In one account with Axis Bank, the amount is Rs. 6,19,956/- and other bank account with Union Bank of India, the amount is Rs.

3,39,195/.

4. The allegation against the appellant is for utilization of the loan amount of Rs. 20.23 crore taken from three financial institutions for the purpose other than for which it was sanctioned. Accordingly, FIRs were registered not only against the appellant but many others. The counsel submitted that the amount borrowed by the appellant from different financial institutions was utilized to repay the amount of loan of Punjab National Bank. Accordingly, a case of cheating is not made out. The bank account were yet provisionally attached by the respondent.

The prayer was made to cause interference in the impugned order.

5. The counsel for the appellant did not raise any other argument for challenge to the impugned order rather restricted his arguments to what has been referred above. Accordingly, the counsel for the respondent was called upon to argue the appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent contest the appeal. Elaborate arguments were made to show justification for causing provisional attachment order and its confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority. The argument raised by the counsel for the respondent would be referred while recording finding to the arguments of the counsel for the appellant. It is to avoid repetition of one and same facts and for the sake of brevity.

Findings of the Tribunal

7. The counsel for the appellant raised a limited issue for challenge to the provisional attachment order and its confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority. The argument was made with the statement that the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 20.23 crore from three financial institutions somewhere in the year 2010. The allegation against the appellant is for utilization of loan for the purpose than it was taken.

8. According to the appellant, the case of cheating is not made out. It is more so when the money so borrowed by the appellant was used to repay the loan of the Punjab National Bank. The learned counsel for the appellant was asked as to show whether the loan amount worth Rs. 20.23 crores has been repaid because intervening period is of 15 years. The counsel is fair to state that the borrowed amount has not been repaid to the financial institutions.

9. The statement aforesaid is enough to justify provisional attachment of the bank accounts of the appellant and otherwise what we find is that as against the proceeds of crime Rs. 20.23 crores, the provisional attachment is only for the sum of Rs. 9,59,151/-. The respondents at their own chose not to attach the property of value equivalent to the proceeds of crime and in any case, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order in attaching the bank accounts in the hands of the appellant to secure the proceeds of crime to the extent of Rs. 9,59,151/-.

10. In the light of the aforesaid, we are unable to accept any of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

11. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.

(Justice Munishwar N