FINAL ORDER

15.10.2025

FPA-PMLA-4811/GOA/2022

This appeal has been filed to challenge the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 06.10.2021.

Brief facts of the case:

2. The provisional attachment of the properties is arising out of the FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), ACB Goa on 01.05.2018 against the accused which includes the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 120-B of the IPC, 1860 and offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation in the FIR was in regard to bank fraud committed by the accused. They alleged to have cheated the State Bank of India (SBI), Commercial Branch Panaji to the tune of Rs.39.41 Crore + unapplied interest and other charges in availing term loan and other facilities for setting up Ultra Heat Treatment plant and thereafter fraudulently diverting and misappropriating the funds causing huge loss to the SBI, Commercial Branch, Panaji.

3. After causing investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by CBI on 27.01.2019 against the accused which includes even the appellant. The ECIR was recorded on 24.07.2019 against the appellant and many others finding a predicate offence and the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short “the Act of 2002”). The investigation was caused by the respondents after recording the ECIR. The statements of many persons which includes Shri Suyash S/o Shri Ramakant Asthana and many others were recorded under Section 50 (2) and 50(3) of the Act of 2002. Shri Suyash was Deputy General Manager of the Project Finance Cell, SBI and the complainant in the present case. He disclosed commission of crime by the accused who approached for term loan facility sanctioned to M/s Ganindu Milk and Milk Products Private Limited (in short “M/s GMMP”). It was to set up an Ultra Heat Treatment Plant for processing of milk and fruits juices. It was found that M/s GMMP is part of Siddarath Group of Companies whose promoter was the appellant and his family members. In investigation, the proceeds of crime was found in the hands of the appellant and, therefore, the properties were provisionally attached.

Arguments of counsel for the appellant:

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the provisional attached properties have no link to the alleged commission of crime yet it has been attached ignoring the definition of “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act of 2002. The respondents have caused provisional attachment of the properties for value thereof or equivalent value to the proceeds of crime though it is not permissible. The respondents could have caused provisional attachment of the properties if it can be legally connected with the commission of crime to show its acquisition directly or indirectly out of the criminal activities relating to predicate offence. In the instant case, the respondents have failed to connect any of the property to the commission of crime and acquisition of the property arising out of it and to be in the hands of the appellant so as to be attached. In absence of it, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without reasons to believe to be recorded under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 to disclose the basis for provisional attachment of the properties and even for its confirmation. The impugned order has been passed in disregard to Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 thus on the aforesaid ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

6. It was also submitted that the property was purchased prior to the commission of crime, therefore, it could not have been considered to be proceeds of crime but the aforesaid aspect has also been ignored by the respondents while causing provisional attachment and