APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI FPA-PMLA-2426/COCHIN/2018 Shri M. Praween Kumar … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who Argued For the Appellant: Mr. R.V. Yogesh, Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advs.

For the Respondent: Mr. N.K. Matta, SPP, Mr. Aaditya Raj Sharma, Adv.

CORAM SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

28.10.2025 Dictated by: Rajesh Malhotra Present appeal u/s 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is filed by the appellant against the confirmation order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint No. 875/2018, whereby the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No. 03/2017 dated 30.12.2017 qua the properties including the property of present appellant was confirmed for attachment. The details of the property of present appellant are as under:

2. During the arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellant contended

that he is a bona-fide purchaser of the aforesaid property vide

agreement to sell dated 05.08.2011. He pointed out page 2 of this

agreement which reflects that out of the total sale consideration of

Rs. 35 Lakh, the appellant has tendered part payment of Rs. 30 Lakhs in cash with an undertaking to tender the balance payment of Rs. 5 Lakhs to the vendor at the time of execution of sale deed before SRO, Ganthi, District – Ranga Reddy, Telangana.

He pointed out that after the execution of the sale agreement and tendering the major part of sale consideration except the remaining amount of Rs.5 Lakh, the Respondent passed the Provisional Attachment Order on 30.12.2017, which was wrongly confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on 12.01.2018, without appreciating the fact that the appellant is a Bonafide purchaser of the property. He pointed out that as the sale deed was not executed by the vendor, he filed suit for specific performance, which is pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, District – Ranga Reddy, Telangana. He pointed out that there is nothing on record that the present appellant was part and parcel of any criminal conspiracy with the vendor or the accused persons in any manner whatsoever. He further pointed out that when he entered into an agreement for purchase of the property then, he was not aware of the fact that he was likely to be cheated by the vendor and the developers of the property. The FIRs were registered against the said accused persons after execution of the agreement for sale, without suspecting any foul play. Prayer is accordingly made to allow the present appeal and thereby grant liberty to the Appellant for execution of sale deed in his favour through Civil Court, or alternatively his right for the same be protected as per the final outcome of the civil suit for specific performance of agreement to sell.

3. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent contended that bare perusal of agreement of sale reflects that the agreement was neither registered, nor notarized, which creates doubt on the same and the fabrication of the same as ante-dated is not ruled out. He argued that no purchaser will tender more than 90 percent of the sale consideration in cash to the vendor, without insisting for the execution of sale deed. He further argued that appellant failed to prove the source of Rs.30 Lakhs for purchasing the aforesaid property. Appellant has not filed even Income Tax Returns to show his creditworthiness to purchase the property and the fact that he tendered the huge amount of Rs. 30 Lakh to the vendor. He stressed that all these facts point towards the direction that the said agreement for sale is a strategy/arrangement between the vendor and the vendee to save the property from attachment. Prayer is accordingly made to dismiss the present appeal being devoid of any merits.

4. After hearing the rival submissions, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the same. We are convinced by the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for