APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI FPA-PMLA-767/ALS/2025 Bholanath Rajpati Shukla … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director … Respondent Directorate of Enforcement, Allahabad Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Shri Nishant Joshi, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Aditya Singla, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN

FINAL ORDER

01.04.2026 The Appeal has been preferred under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short ‘the Act of 2002’) against the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the provisional attachment order.

2. The learned counsel for the Appellant, on instructions, submits that he needs not to press the Appeal against the attachment of the property if submitted that an order to maintain status quo was passed by this Tribunal on the stay application filed by the Appellant. The interim order was passed when no exceptional reason for taking possession was given. The release of property may be kept subject to the outcome of the trial and 3. The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that if the attachment of the property and its confirmation are not questioned rather Appellant is not pressing the Appeal to question those orders, and would be satisfied only if the possession is not taken, this Tribunal may pass an appropriate order on the possession, if it lies with the Appellant but he should not either alienate or transfer it during the pendency of the trial in the criminal case.

4. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The Appeal has been preferred to challenge the provisional attachment order and its confirmation by the impugned order dated 11.04.2025. The counsel for the Appellant, on instructions, submits that his client is not inclined to press the Appeal for challenge to the impugned orders if the possession of the property is not taken. A reference of the interim order passed by the Tribunal has been given and accordingly prayer is made that subject to the outcome of the trial in pursuance to ECIR, let the attached property be dealt with as per Section 8(5) to 8(8) of the Act of 2002.

5. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2022) SCC Online 929, the possession can be taken under an exceptional case. Accordingly, this Appeal is disposed of without causing interference in the provisional attachment order so as the order of its confirmation. The parties would, however, maintain status-quo in regard to the possession as was obtained earlier. The Appellant would otherwise not would be governed.

If any of the property is on lease/ rent, or is given on lease/ rent in future, then it would be governed as per Prevention of Money-laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013. The amount of lease/ rent would be accounted to the ED and is to be kept in the FD to earn reasonable interest. The FD would remain subject to final outcome of the trial. The appellant would furnish an affidavit to the ED periodically in every three months to show status of the property whether it has been rented/ leased out or not. The ED would be at liberty to verify the veracity of the affidavit and if it is found to be incorrect, to make an application in the disposed of matter for an appropriate order.

6. It is made clear that this order would not be taken adverse to the Appellant and any observation in the impugned orders would not be binding on the trial court rather it would pass the order independently and based on the evidence led before it.

7. The Respondents would however be at liberty to file an application in this disposed of Appeal to seek possession of the property, if a case of exceptional nature is made out.

8. With the aforesaid, the Appeal is disposed of.

(Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari)

Chairman