APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT PATNA FPA-PMLA-6736/PTN/2023 Mithun Yadav … Appellant

2. MP-PMLA-13646/PTN/2023 Exemp.

MP-PMLA-13645/PTN/2023 Stay FPA-PMLA-6739/PTN/2023 Amit Kumar … Appellant

3. MP-PMLA-13648/PTN/2023 Exemp.

MP-PMLA-13647/PTN/2023 Stay FPA-PMLA-6740/PTN/2023 Dinesh Yadav … Appellant

4. MP-PMLA-13650/PTN/2023 Exemp.

MP-PMLA-13649/PTN/2023 Stay FPA-PMLA-6741/PTN/2023 Akilesh Yadav … Appellant

5. MP-PMLA-13652/PTN/2023 Exemp.

MP-PMLA-13651/PTN/2023 Stay FPA-PMLA-6742/PTN/2023 Sudha Dev … Appellant

6. MP-PMLA-13654/PTN/2023 Exemp.

MP-PMLA-13653/PTN/2023 Stay FPA-PMLA-6743/PTN/2023 Ajeet Kumar … Appellant

7. MP-PMLA-13656/PTN/2023 Exemp.

Sumit Kumar … Appellant Jaynandan Yadav … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Counsel Appeared For the Respondent : Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI V. ANANDARAJAN : MEMBER SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

26.07.2025 By the batch of these appeals, a challenge has been made to the order dated 01.09.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 31.03.2023.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial in all the pending four cases has been completed and resulted in acquittal of the appellants thus no predicate offence remains against them. A reference of Para 7 of the reply filed by the respondents was given to indicate that even according to them out of nine FIRs, it remained six thereupon and finally trial remained only against four FIRs which were registered in the years 1992, 1999, 2000 and lastly 2017. Since the accused have been acquitted in reference to predicate offence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Prosecution Complaint in pursuance to the ECIR has been filed followed by cognizance of the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short `PMLA’) thus mere acquittal of the accused for the predicate offence may not be taken as a ground to set aside the Provisional Attachment Order.

4. We have considered the rival submissions and find that at the time of filing reply to the appeals, a reference of four pending cases was given by the respondents in Para 7, out of which three FIRs were registered in the years 1992, 1999, 2000 and one FIR was registered in the year 2017. The Trial Court has passed the order of acquittal of the accused for the predicate offence. The order of acquittal was passed in July, 2024 and onwards till February, 2025. In view of the above, when no predicate offence exists now against any of the appellants, the provisional attachment of the property cannot sustain. PMLA pre-supposes a predicate offence and it is not only at the time of recording of the ECIR but subsequent thereto. If an order of acquittal is passed in the predicate offence leaving no case for trial, then the order of provisional attachment cannot sustain. The view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in WP (C) No.368 of 2021 Indrani Patnaik & Anr. Vs. Enforcement Directorate & Ors. vide order dated 03.11.2022. The petition was allowed following the discharge of the petitioner in the scheduled offence and thus, finding no reason to continue proceedings under PMLA. The Apex Court while passing the said order relied upon the law laid down by the three judge Bench in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 929. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. Appeals are allowed with the aforesaid.

(Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari)

Chairman (Balesh Kumar) (V. Anandarajan)

Member Member New Delhi, 26^th July, 2025 ‘SRD’