APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

1. MP-PMLA-5872/BBS/2019 Stay Shri Jagatananda Sinha … Appellant

2. MP-PMLA-412/BBS/2024 Exem.

MP-PMLA-410/BBS/2024 Stay FPA-PMLA-146/BBS/2024 Smt. Baijayanti Sinha … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneshwar … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellants : Mrs. Rajdipa Behura, Adv.

Mr. Philomon Kani, Adv. Ms. Neha Dobriyal, Adv.

Ms. Aishwarya Gupta, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr. Chandra Prakash, Adv.

Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Adv.

CORAM SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

16.10.2025 This Order disposes of the Appeal Nos. FPA-PMLA-2967/BBS/2019 and FPA-PMLA-146/BBS/2024 filed by Shri Jagatananda Sinha & Smt. Baijayanti Sinha respectively, against the Order dated 18.02.2019 (Impugned Order) in Original Complaint No. 1041/2018 (OC) passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Provisional Attachment Order No. 10/2018 (PAO) dated 28.09.2018 was confirmed vide the Impugned Order. The movable and immovable properties in the names of the Appellants Shri Jagatananda Sinha & Smt. Baijayanti Sinha, wife of Shri Jagatananda Sinha were attached. Cash of Rs. 6,80,000/- seized by the Vigilance Department of the Government of Odisha from the residence of Shri Jagatananda Sinha, Bank Accounts in Axis Bank, State Bank of India and HDFC Bank bearing total amount of Rs. 14,28,550.73, the Post Office National Savings Certificates of Rs. 3,70,000/- and the immovable properties comprising of land and building valued at Rs. 24,44,052/- were attached.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants prays to dispose of the two Appeals in terms of their plea that the matter be finally decided including that relating to the impugned properties by the Special Court for PMLA, where the Prosecution Complaint under PMLA already filed, is pending. The two Appeals have been preferred to challenge the PAO and the Impugned Order. However, Ld. Counsel for the Appellants, on instructions submits that her clients are not inclined to press the Appeals for challenge to the Impugned Orders. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants brought to notice the Order dated

25.03.2019 of this Tribunal, whereby it was ordered:

“The learned counsel for the appellant is pressing for Interim order. She states that two notices u/s 8(4) of PMLA have been issued by the respondent for taking the possession therefore it is necessary to pass an Interim order. She also submits that possession of the properties is still with the Appellant.

Mr. S.K. Sharma counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer for of the appellant.

Counsel for the appellant states that respondent being an independent agency, so, Adjudicating Authority ought to have passed the impugned order on merits. Counsel for the appellant has referred at page no. 34 of the impugned order, part of said page which is read as under:-

"At this point it is not worthwhile to go into the details of the individual items or properties acquired by them as the matter is pending before the Special Court where the income assessed by the vigilance is already under consideration of the court. Therefore, there appears to be no justification at this stage for intervening in computation of assets, expenditure, income, etc. and figures adopted by the complainant appears to be justified."

Till next date both the parties shall maintained the status quo with regard to the attached properties.”

Ld. Counsel prayed that the possession of the properties in terms of the aforementioned Order may be maintained and the ‘status quo’ as it stood on

25.03.2019 qua the attached properties may be continued.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent expressed no objection to the prayer of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants.

4. On perusal of the record, it is seen from the Submissions dated 08.11.2019 filed by the Respondent that in reply to the notices dated 07.03.2019, the Banks and the Postal Department ha