APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI MP-PMLA-5011/PTN/2018 Stay FPA-PMLA-2535/PTN/2018 Punjab National Bank … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv.

Mr. Rishi Chauhan, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. N K Matta, Advocate Mr. Aaditya Raj Sharma, Adv.

CORAM SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

04.12.2025 This Order disposes of the Appeal No. FPA-PMLA-2535/PTN/2018 filed by Punjab National Bank (PNB), against the Order dated 06.07.2018 (Impugned Order) passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in the Original Complaint No. 893/2018 (OC). The Provisional Attachment Order No.03/2018 dated 01.02.2018 (PAO) issued in ECIR No. PTZO/05/2017 dated 31.07.2017 was confirmed vide the Impugned Order. The Impugned Order included the attachment of Maruti Brezza Car bearing No. JH 09 AH 9713 of the value Rs. 10,69,173/- in the name of the owner Shri Dhanik Lal Mandal, who had hypothecated the said car to the Appellant Punjab National Bank against the loan of Rs.6,50,000/- extended by the Appellant Bank to Shri Mandal.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant PNB stated that Shri Dhanik Lal Mandal had approached the Appellant Bank for sanction of a car loan. The Appellant Bank sanctioned Rs. 6,50,000/- for purchase of Maruti Brezza on 19.02.2017. Shri Mandal had transferred Rs. 4,19,000/- from his account with the Appellant Bank on 21.09.2017 as margin money towards the purchase of the aforementioned vehicle. Shri Mandal had submitted his ITRs for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17 in support of his application seeking the car loan. Ld. Counsel contended that the Appellant Bank had a first charge in law on the said vehicle as the same is a secured asset under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act 2002 read with RDDB Act 1993. He further contended that the vehicle cannot be regarded as proceeds of crime and therefore the Impugned Order had been passed without application of mind. Ld. Counsel stated that the letter of hypothecation dated 21.09.2017 was executed by Shri Mandal in favour of the Appellant. Moreover, there is no charge of money laundering against the Appellant Bank. The credit facility of Rs. 6,50,000/- was untainted money. Ld. Counsel stated that the provisions of PMLA do not override the provisions of SARFAESI and RDDB Acts. Ld. Counsel further stated the right of the third party like the Appellant Bank, which has no involvement in the Schedule offences cannot be decimated by the operation of PMLA. Ld. Counsel contended that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority did not appreciate and consider that the jural concept of confiscation of proceeds of crime into the coffers of State is premised on the legal principle that the offences are directed against the State and, therefore, the proceeds thereof should go the State. However, in the instant case, the hypothecated assets are created from the loan disbursements and the same ought to be liquidated only to compensate the banks which have been wronged by defaults in repayment of the loan facilities. The doctrine of restitution would, ensure to the benefit of the person injured, which, in the instant case, would be the members of the consortium. Ld. Counsel therefore pleaded to allow the Appeal.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Directorate stated that Shri Dhanik Lal Mandal in his statement under Section 50 of PMLA was unable to state his monthly income and stated having filed ITRs only for two years 2016-17 and 2017-18. He failed to submit any documentary evidence with respect to sources of his income. Ld. Counsel stated that Shri Mandal bought Maruti Brezza car in September, 2017 costing Rs. 10.69 lakhs for which he had taken loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- from the Appellant Bank and the remaining amount of Rs. 4,19,000/- was paid by him from his savings account in the Appellant bank.