APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

1. MP-PMLA-9636/BNG/2022 (Stay) MP-PMLA-9637/BNG/2022 (Exemp.)

FPA-PMLA-4745/BNG/2022 Shri S. M. Basavaraju … Appellant

2. MP-PMLA-9638/BNG/2022 (Stay) MP-PMLA-9639/BNG/2022 (Exemp.)

FPA-PMLA-4746/BNG/2022 Smt. N. Nagamani … Appellant

3. MP-PMLA-9640/BNG/2022 (Stay) MP-PMLA-9641/BNG/2022 (Exemp.)

FPA-PMLA-4747/BNG/2022 Dr. Manju Deepathi … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellants : Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudee, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Aditya Singla, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

25.09.2025 By batch of appeals, a challenge has been made to the order dated

25.07.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 13.10.2021.

It is a case where an FIR was registered by Karnataka Lokayukta Police for the offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act of 1988). After the investigation, chargesheet was filed by Karnataka Lokayukta Police before the 23^rd Addl. City Civil & Sessions and Special Judge, Bangalore. The respondent thereupon recorded the ECIR finding a predicate offence and caused the investigation. The PAO was issued for the property valued at Rs. 76,75,935/-.

The allegation against the appellant is for commission of offences under the Act of 1988 was when Mr. S. M. Basavaraju was the Chief Engineer of Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Bangalore. On 21st March, 2013, officials of Karnataka Lokayukta Police/ Government of Karnataka conducted searches at his residence and office premises where they seized the gold ornaments and many documents related to the properties. The chargesheet was then filed after completing the investigation for the offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 finding appellant Mr. S.M. Basavaraju to be in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The check period for it was taken from 1^st February,1980 to 22^nd March, 2013. The total asset in the hands of the appellant was estimated to Rs. 3,39,68,814.67/- while expenditure was found to the of Rs. 12,04,32,411.13/- while the total income of the government employee was Rs. 10,98,90,268.56/- and thereby the asset disproportionate to known sources of income was determined to Rs. 4,45,10,957.24/-. It was alleged to be above 40.50% to the income. The respondents have caused PAO to protect the proceeds of crime till conclusion of the trial. The PAO has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

Arguments of the counsel for the appellant The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that PAO was issued on

13.10.2021 while it was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 25.07.2022. It was beyond a period of 180 days given under Section 5(1) of the PML Act of 2002. As per Section 5(3) of the PML Act of 2002, the PAO order ceased to exist on the expiry of a period of 180 days if it is not confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. In the instant case, the Impugned Order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority beyond a period of 180 days and accordingly the PAO order should cease to exist. On the aforesaid ground itself, the Impugned Order deserves to be set aside.

The learned counsel for the appellant made reference to various immovable properties said to have been acquired from known source of income but has been clubbed while assessing the total assets and expenditure of the erstwhile government employee ignoring the source of the family members to acquire the properties, thus could not have been clubbed with the assets and expenditure of the government employee. In the instant case, respondent ignored not only earnings of erstwhile government employee’s wife out of the tran