ORDER

12.03.2026

By these appeals filed under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( in short “the Act of 2002”), a challenge has been made to the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (‘PAO’) dated 23.02.2023.

Brief facts of the case:

2. It is a case where an FIR was registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem, Tamil Nadu for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the “the Act of 1988”). Shri G. Sevakumaran, appellant, was found to be in possession of the proceeds disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs.3,31,79,560/-. The appellant joined the Government service as Assistant Engineer sometime in the year 1997 and worked at various places and found to have assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The check-period therein was taken from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2019. He acquired the assets worth of Rs.2,07,90,330/- during the check-period, while his total income to the tune of Rs.1,17,00,000/- and his total expenditure to the tune of Rs.2,40,89,230/-.

Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants:

3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has challenged the PAO limited to the properties acquired prior to the check-period for determination of the assets disproportionate to known source of income. It was submitted that the proprieties acquired before the check-period could not have been provisionally attached when it was not even taken into consideration to determine the assets disproportionate known source of income. It was, otherwise, purchased prior to alleged commission of crime and therefore it could not have nexus to the crime. The respondent could have provisionally attached the property falling in the definition of “proceeds of crime” i.e. the properties derived or obtained directly or indirectly out of the scheduled offence. The properties purchased prior to the check-period could not have been reckoned to be properties derived or acquired directly or indirectly out of the proceeds of crime. The prayer was accordingly made to cause interference in the impugned order to the extent of two properties i.e. House Site Survey No. 48/1, 48/1B4, 48/1B4A1, Ayyamperumampatty Village in Salem and Agricultural Land Survey No. 117/1 in Nadupatti Village, Salem.

4. Ld. Counsel for the appellants did not raise any other argument for the reason that a Discharge Petition has been filed by the appellant. Ld. Counsel for the appellants was asked to raise any other legal or factual issues than referred to above even if a Discharge Petition has been filed. Ld. Counsel for the appellants restricted his arguments to the extent referred to above and closed his argument with the aforesaid.

Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent:

5. The appeals were seriously contested by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Elaborate arguments were raised to justify attachment of the properties including the properties acquired even prior to the check-period. It would be referred while recording finding to the arguments raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants.

Findings of the Tribunal:

6. A short issue raised by the appellants is as to whether the property acquired prior to commission of crime can fall within the definition of “proceeds of crime” under the Act of 2002 and furthermore whether the property acquired prior to check- period to determine property disproportionate to the known source of income could have been provisionally attached.

7. To answer the issue framed above, it would be relevant to view the facts of the case. It is no doubt that the respondent determined the assets disproportionate known source of income taking check period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2019. The amount of disproportionate assets was found to be of a sum of Rs.3,31,79,560/- and on the aforesaid no argument was raised. The amount of disproportionate