APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI FPA-PMLA-240/DDN/2024 Shri Hakam Singh Rawat … Appellant V/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Dehradun … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Kamal Singh Bisht, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Ankita Gautam Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocates CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

27.10.2025 By this appeal under Section 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short ‘the Act of 2002), a challenge has been made to the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority allowing freezing of bank accounts till conclusion of trial.

The learned counsel for the appellant made a reference to bank accounts freezed by the respondent during the process of search involving Rs. 10.50 lakhs in all. These bank accounts are said to be the saving bank accounts where all the transactions have been disclosed thus it has no nexus with the proceeds of crime and therefore the challenge to the order to allow the retention of the bank accounts freezed by the respondent has been made.

It is with further statement that amount involved in commission of crime has not been disclosed so as to justify freezing of the saving bank accounts and otherwise the allegation of leakage of paper is yet to be proved. Till it is proved, there remains no justification to continue freezing of the bank accounts. It is lastly submitted that appellant was not given an opportunity to file reply before the Adjudicating Authority, thus, mandate of Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 has been violated apart from principle of natural justice.

The counsel for the appellant did not raise any other issues despite an opportunity.

The counsel for the respondent contested the appeal on all three issues.

References of the FIRs registered from time to time was given where the serious allegation about leakage of the paper for the examination of Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (USSSC) was made and appellant was one of the main accused. The candidates suffering on that count filed FIR from time to time alleging receipt of Rs. 10.50 lakhs from each candidate for providing leaked paper. Initially, it was only 30-35 candidates which later on was found to be more than 60. The appellant himself was main accused rather kingpin of offence and accordingly he was arrested. It is stated that the appellant has been granted bail later on. The fact however remains about the involvement of the appellant for which reference of the evidence collected during the course of the investigation has been given in the Impugned Order showing involvement of the appellant and others for the commission of offence for which trial is still pending.

The counsel for the appellant has questioned seizure of the saving bank accounts to be used for his day to day expenses and to take care to deposit fee etc. having no nexus with the proceeds of crime rather all the transactions in the saving bank accounts have been reflected. The argument aforesaid has been contested by the counsel for the respondent. It is stated that investigation is yet to be completed in view of the number of FIRs against the appellant and others alleging leakage of papers on receipt of Rs. 10.50 lakhs from each candidate. The proceed of crime has come to the appellant and subject to further investigation, the provisional attachment of the properties to the extent of proceed of crime in the hands of the appellant can be caused. Presently it is only a seizure of bank accounts which may be much below to the procced of crime received by the appellant. The sources remain relevant when the appellant is not recipient of proceeds of crime.

We have considered the rival submissions and find that there exists serious allegation against the appellant for commission of crime. The appellant was involved in a racket to leak paper of the competitive examination to be undertaken by UKSSC. I