FINAL ORDER

24.04.2025

This Order disposes of the Appeals Nos. FPA-PMLA-892/BNG/2015, FPA-PMLA-893/BNG/2015 & FPA-PMLA- 894/BNG/2015 filed by Sh. Oli Jagadeesha, Sh. Dodda Sidappa & Smt. Oli Nirmala respectively against the Order dated 18.12.2014 (Impugned Order) in Original Complaint No. 351/2014 (O.C.) passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Impugned Order has confirmed the provisional attachment of land measuring 0.4 Acre at Koilaragatte village in Bellary District and godown, cattle shed bearing Door No. 193 in the name of the Appellant Sh. Dodda Sidappa. The Impugned Order has also confirmed the provisional attachment of residential site in Chintrapalli village, Bellary District in the name of the Appellant Sh. Oli Jagadeesha. Provisional attachment of Agriculture land measuring 4.68 Acres in Koilaragatte village in Bellary District and Agriculture Land measuring 12.08 Acres plus 1.99 Acres in Koilaragatte village in Bellary District in the name of the Appellant Smt. Oli Nirmala has also been confirmed vide the Impugned Order. Movable property i.e., JCB in the name of the Appellant Smt. Oli Nirmala was also provisionally attached and subsequently confirmed vide the Impugned Order.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants argued that the impugned order reveals that an FIR in Crime No.06/2009 dated 22.09.2009 was registered by Karnataka Lokayukt Police, Hospet, Bellary District against Shri Oli Eshappa, Son of Late Shri Sanna Revappa, Assistant Agricultural Officer (since retired), Watershed Development Department, Koilaragatte, Hadagali Taluk, Bellary District, PIN: 583 219, for offences alleged to have been committed under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, a case under the PMLA was registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Bengaluru Zonal Office vide F. No. ECIR-16/BZ/2009, on 26.10.2009, to investigate the case involving commission of an offence of money laundering. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Sh. Oli Eshappa who is the main accused, was a public servant, and the Appellants, namely, Oli Jagadeesha, is the son of Oli Eshappa, Dodda Sidappa is the brother, and Nirmala is the wife of Oli Eshappa.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the properties attached by the Respondent Directorate have not been obtained or purchased out of “proceeds of crime” as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, as the provisionally attached properties are ancestral properties and were purchased before 2009, i.e., before the FIR was registered against the Appellant Sh. Oli Eshappa. All the attached properties are in the names of the Appellants who have their own legitimate independent income from salary or agriculture. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the deposition of the Investigating Officer recorded during the prosecution trial to state the inconsistencies in the stands taken by the Respondent Directorate. He also challenged the methodology for the calculation of the value of the assets which have been attached. He further submitted that the allegation against the appellants that they were involved in laundering money is incorrect, and on the contrary, the Respondent has failed to establish beyond doubt any connection as to how the alleged proceeds were used in purchasing the property that was purchased prior to the commission of the Scheduled offence. Ld. Counsel argued that none of the properties has been attached as value thereof but as direct proceeds of crime. Ld. Counsel contended that each of the property has been purchased through the income generated from agriculture, dairy farming and use of JCB.

4. Besides the argument relating to the retrospective application of the provisions of PMLA in making the attachment of the properties which had come into existence before the provisions relating to the Predicate Offence of Corruption were included in the Schedule to the Act, Ld. C