APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI MP-PMLA-11839/DLI/2023 Exem. MP-PMLA-11838/DLI/2023 Exem.

MP-PMLA-11836/DLI/2023 Stay FPA-PMLA-5924/DLI/2023 Smt. Poonam Anand … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi. … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Shivan Khurana, Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Pandey, Mr. Mithunesh S, Ms. Komal Bharti, Ms. Vartika Gupta, Advocates CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

15.09.2025 FPA-PMLA-5924/DLI/2023 The appeal has been preferred under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short `the Act of 2002’) to challenge the order dated 27.01.2023 confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 16.08.2022.

Brief facts of the case:

2. It is a case where an FIR was registered on 06.09.2021 by Police Station, Economic Office Wing (EOW), Delhi Police, Delhi on a complaint of Medical Superintendent, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS.

3. It is stated that one Bijender Kumar in connivance of other persons embezzled the Govt. funds of more than Rs.5 Crores. Internal enquiry by RPC, AIIMS revealed that funds were withdrawn without supply of `linen & other store items’ in General and, therefore, entire amount was siphoned off, which was withdrawn in cash. The Delhi Police filed the charge-sheet against the accused on 14.01.2022. It was found that an amount of Rs.13,43,72,256/- is involved in dummy billing and fictitious supply orders.

4. The main accused Bijender Kumar (Junior Administrative Assistant) in collusion with Naveen Kumar and other officials of AIIMS during the period of December, 2020 to September, 2021 used to create fake indents for requisition of goods at RPC, AIIMS. On the basis of 20 such fake indents, he created fake supply orders. The further investigation revealed that other 19 indents were raised by Naveen Kumar from his user ID and verified from the user ID of Dr. Atul Kumar, another accused. One indent was raised by using even user ID of Manoj Kumar (Junior Administrative Officer) and verified from the user ID of Dr. Y. Ramya Jyothi.

5. The respondents recorded ECIR and caused investigation in the matter. The statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 50(2) and (3) of the Act of 2002 which supported the allegation levied by the prosecution. The respondents found proceeds of crime in the hands of the appellant and accordingly, they provisionally attached house property in the name of the appellant. The Provisional Attachment Order has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been preferred.

Arguments of counsel for the appellant:

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that house property of the appellant has been provisionally attached without having any nexus with the commission of crime, rather house property was purchased by the appellant from her own sources and disclosed before the Adjudicating Authority but ignored and, therefore, there exists no reference of the defence taken by the appellant.

7. It was further submitted that the appellant has not been named as an accused in the FIR or ECIR. The prosecution complaint has also not been filed against her. The FIR was lodged against the appellant’s husband Bijender Kumar and even charge-sheet was filed against him but for that reason alone, house property acquired by her could not have been attached.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the property at Yamuna Vihar was purchased for a sum of Rs.57,82,400/- after taking friendly loan of Rs.27.80 Lakhs. It was from Shri Raj Mal, Shri Ravindra, Ms. Ayushi Gautam and Ms. Suman. The aforesaid source was ignored by the respondents despite proper disclosure of the amount contributed by each one. The remaining amount was out of her savings and stridhan. The appellant got married in the year 2008 and s