APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

1. FPA-PMLA-1839/CHN/2017 J Arul

2. FPA-PMLA-1840/CHN/2017 S Nirmala

3. FPA-PMLA-1841/CHN/2017 Smt. S. Kumari

4. FPA-PMLA-1842/CHN/2017 D. Senthil … Appellants Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who Argued For the Appellants : Mr. Naveen Malhotra & Mr. Ritvik Malhotra, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Ritesh Agrawal, Advocate CORAM SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

12.08.2025 Dictated By: Rajesh Malhotra The present appeals under Section 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) are filed by the appellants against the order dated 21.06.2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint (OC) No.690/2017, whereby the provisional attachment order (PAO) No. 03/2017 dated 10.02.2017 was confirmed. The properties of the present appellant are mentioned in para no. 1 of the impugned order and the same is not reproduced herein.

2. As per the facts of the case, a large number of complaints were lodged against Shri Sridhar Dhanapal a notorious criminal for his involvement in 5 murders, 10 attempt to murders, kidnapping for ransom and also many other heinous offence cases and accordingly 26 FIRs were registered in different Police Station against him for commission of Schedule Offences. Out of said FIRs, appellant D. Senthil is also named in the three FIRs, alongwith his brother.

Accordingly, the Directorate of Enforcement recorded the ECIR No.

CEZO/03/2016 dated 09.03.2016 for conducting investigation for the offences of money laundering and to trace out the trail of the proceeds of crime.

During the investigation, ED recorded the statements of suspects/

accused persons and others including the present appellants and also collected the documents from the Police and other sources including the Income Tax Authorities.

On the basis of the allegations mentioned in the FIR and the material documents collected from the office of concerned Sub-Registrars, ED attached the said properties vide Provisional Attachment Order No. 20/2016 dated 02.09.2016. Thereafter, ED filed the Original Complaint No. 636/2016 before the Adjudicating Authority along with relied upon documents. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the same, vide order dated 03.02.2017. After passing of this order, ED attached the additional properties which subsequently came to light in PAO No. 03/2017 dated 10.02.2017 and thereafter, filed Original Complaint No. 690/2017 before the Adjudicating Authority.

The Adjudicating Authority being satisfied with the allegations mentioned in the Original Complaint No. 690/2017 coupled with the relied upon documents, issued the Show Cause Notice to the defendants. After receiving the replies and hearing the rival submissions, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the PAO No. 03/2017 vide its order dated 21.06.2017.

Aggrieved by the said order, appellants filed the present appeals.

3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the original complaint nowhere mentions as to how the impugned properties are proceeds of crime. The appellants were not involved in any scheduled offence or in any criminal activity hence the provision of Section 2(1)(y) are not applicable to the appellants, and they are merely the bonafide purchasers and the properties were purchased when no proceedings under the PMLA were initiated against the persons involved in the scheduled offence.

He further pointed out that the impugned proceedings are illegal and unconstitutional being hit by violation of the principle of Coram non -judice. He stated that the provision of Section 6 (5)(a)&(b) of the PMLA require that the matter should be decided by a bench of Chairperson along with one or two members and since in the present case, the Chairperson alone has decided the matter, the same is hit by Section 6 of the PMLA.

He also cited the case of Hasham Abbas Sayyed v. Usman Abbas Syyed v. Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1077, w