FINAL ORDER

14.10.2025

This Order disposes of the Appeal No. FPA-PMLA-3165/DLI/2019 filed by Shri Anand Chauhan, against the Order dated 11.01.2019 (Impugned Order) passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in the Original Complaint No. 1016/2018 (OC). The Provisional Attachment Order No. 06/2018 dated 26.07.2018 (PAO) issued in ECIR No. 02/HIU/HQ/2015 dated 27.10.2015 was confirmed vide the Impugned Order. 68% of the property acquired by the Appellant through family settlement deed dated 01.07.2016 comprising of “Half Part Top/2^nd Floor towards Dhingu Mandir Side having built up area 110.80 Sq. Mtrs. of the four storied building known as ‘Kailash Niwas’, Inder Nagar Dhalli, Shimla-1 built on land comprised in Khata Khatoni No.52/129 Khasra No. 266, 267, 268 and 269” of value Rs.11,41,800/- was thus attached.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant challenged the Impugned Order on the ground that it is founded neither in law nor in logic. Ld. Counsel contended that amendment in 2012 of Section 3 of PMLA, which became effective from 15.02.2013, is not applicable to the present proceedings. The provisions of Section 3 before the amendment were restricted to any process or activity which is connected with the proceeds of crime. It is only after the amendment that the provisions included concealment, possession, acquisition or use and claiming it as untainted property. Since, the main matter related to the case of disproportionate assets filed by CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PCA) against Shri Virbhadra Singh then Union Minister for the check period from 28.05.2009 to 26.06.2012 the post amended Section 3 of PMLA does not apply. Ld. Counsel further argued that the role of the Appellant was limited to procuring the LIC Policies for Shri Virbhdra Singh and his family members. The Appellant is alleged to have earned commission of Rs.11,41,800/- which the Ld. Adjudicating Authority wrongly considered to be the proceeds of crime. Ld. Counsel contended that the Appellant earned his commission as the LIC agent and not as an agent in-charge of the Apple Orchard. In this regard, Ld. Counsel cited the Judgment in the matter of Razorpay Software Private Limited vs. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine Kar 23]. The Appellant had acted on instructions of his principal to buy the LIC Policies. The commission can in no manner be regarded as direct or indirect proceeds of crime.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant further argued that the relevant provisions of the PCA i.e. Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e), were included in the Schedule to the PMLA w.e.f. 15.02.2013. The argument ran that the provisions of law cannot be retrospectively applied as Article 20 (1) of the Constitution bars invocation of ex-post facto penal laws against a person. He reiterated that since the alleged offence stated to have been committed between the year 2009 and the year 2012 i.e. before the amendment to include the relevant provisions of the PC Act in the Schedule to the PMLA, the same cannot be brought under the purview of PMLA. Ld. Counsel further argued that no reason to believe has been provided which is the basic ingredient for invocation of Section 5 (1) of PMLA. Ld. Counsel contended that an erroneous finding has been made in the Impugned Order that such reasons to believe have been provided. There was no justification for the attachment of the impugned property as the Appellant acquired the property as part of the family settlement. Moreover, Shri Krishan Chand Chauhan, father of the Appellant had done settlement of property for benefit of children on 09.05.1989 and registered a deed to that effect on 30.06.2016. Ld. Counsel cited the Judgment in the matter of Pavana Dibbur vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2023)15 SCC 91 in this regard. Ld. Counsel contended that the statement of the Appellant under Section 50 of PMLA were recorded while he was in judicial custody and hence are not admissible as e