FINAL ORDER

29.04.2025

FPA-PMLA-3907/GWT/2021

By way of this appeal 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 18.12.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 26.03.2019.

2. By way of Provisional Attachment Order, second floor Flat with a super built-up area of 1500 Sq. Ft. in KMC Premises, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata has been attached. It was purchased by the appellant by way of sale deed dated 11.05.2009 for consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-.

3. The attachment has been caused in reference to the registration of the case for commission of offence under Section 120-B, 419, 420, 467 and 471 IPC. The allegation was made against M/s Vasundhara Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. along with its Director for availing a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.10 Crores along with short term loan of Rs.54 lakhs from IDBI, Guwahati in a fraudulent manner. The account of borrower was declared NPA on 30.06.2010. In the investigation, it was revealed that the funds were routed through maze of accounts opened in the name of different entities and a sum of Rs.9,81,15,000/- was finally withdrawn in cash. It was further revealed that the Cash Credit loan of Rs.10 Crores was completely misappropriated and utilized for the purpose other than that for which the loan was taken. The appellant is daughter of Shri Bahadur Singh Kathotia involved in the commission of crime and finding Flat in the hands of the appellant having no source for its purchase, it was attached by the respondents finding its source by the accused.

Arguments of counsel for the appellant:

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the property attached by the respondents has no nexus with the crime. The loan amount was sanctioned on 15.09.2009 while the property in question was purchased on 11.05.2009 i.e. prior to advancement of loan thus cannot be said to be a purchase out of the proceeds of crime. The FIR was otherwise registered on 18.06.2012 and thereby the property purchased prior to the commission of crime could not have been attached and that too not in the hands of the accused. In view of the above, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on the aforesaid ground itself.

5. It is further submitted that the appellant was having source to purchase the Flat for consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-. She was in jobs from the year 1999 and, therefore, earned sufficient amount to purchase the property in question. The appellant had produced the appointment letters to show that she remained in service but ignored by the Adjudicating Authority. It is, however, admitted that the appointment letters have not been placed on record in the appeal or along with the rejoinder for perusal and consideration of this Tribunal.

6. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant had means to purchase the property but it was ignored by the Adjudicating Authority. The counsel for the appellant, however, admitted that no bank statement of the appellant has been filed to indicate the financial capacity out of so called earning from the job and even the income tax return to prove monthly salary and total savings enabled the appellant to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-. The counsel for the appellant further admitted that appellant‟s father Shri Bahadur Singh Kathotia was summoned many times by the respondents but he did not appear for unavoidable reasons but only for that reason, the property in the hands of the appellant could not have been attached. The prayer was made to cause interference in the impugned order when the property in question cannot be connected or said to be the proceeds of crime.

Arguments of counsel for the respondents:

7. The appeal was contested by the respondents on all the issues and submitted that the Flat in the name of the appellant has been attached finding material to connect its purchase on passing of the consideration by the appellan