Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 24
BEFORE RAJESH MALHOTRA, MEMBER; SINGLE BENCH: APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, AT NEW DELHI.
FPA-PMLA-994/PTN/2015 Surendra Tiwary &Anr.
FPA-PMLA-1101/PTN/2015 Smt. Savitri Devi ……. Appellants Versus Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna ….Respondent Advocates / Authorized Representatives who appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra,Ms. Suruchi Yadav, Advs.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Matta, Mr. Aditya Raj Sharma, Mr. Faizan Khan, Advs.
FINAL ORDER
25.02.2025 The present appeals are filed by the appellants against the order dated 01.06.2015 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint No. 412 of 2015 vide which properties attached by the Enforcement Directorate in PAO No. 1/2015 dated 07.01.20215 were confirmed. The details of the said properties are as under:
TOTAL Rs.10,78,176
Sl.No.
Sale Deed and Date
Purchaser Details
of Immovable properties
Location
Area
Consideration in₹
1
2421 dated 19.08.2011, DSR PIRO, Bhojpur
Smt. Savitri Devi
Residential Plot at Mauza- Chilbilia, Thana- Piro, Dist.,- Bhojpur
Thana No. 101 Khata No. 113 Khesra No. 172
6.25 Decimal
Value 2,38,000 Registration 5530 Stamp Duty 14280 Total 2,57,810
2.
3516 dated 21.12.2011, DSR PIRO, Bhojpur
Smt. Savitri Devi
Land at Mauza-Piro, Thana-Piro, Dist.- Bhojpur
(i) Thana No.-88 Ward No. 12, Khesra No. 4047, Khata No. 302
7.25 Decimal
Value 5,44,000 Registration 11,650 Stamp Duty 43,520 Total 5,99,170
TOTAL
8,56,980
3.
2358 dated – 08.12.2010 DSR PIRO, Bhojpur
Shri Surendra Tiwari
Land at Mauza – Khorai, Thana-Piro, Dist.- Bhojpur, Bihar
Thana No. 102 Khesra No. 53, Chak Khesra-12 Khata No.- 33 Chak Khata 33
1 Katha Value 97,000
T Registration 2326 Stamp Duty 5820 otal 1,05,146
4.
Power of Attorney dated 24.09.07 with A.R.A.- III Kolkata
Shri Surendra Tiwari
Land at Mauza+ Thana-Rajiv Nagar, Road No. 25B Digha, Patna
Thana No. 01, Touzi No. 5130, Plot No. 2291, Khata No. 342
11 Dhoor i.e. 748 Sq. feet.
Total Amount Paid Rs.1,16,050
2. As per the facts of the case, letter dated 06.05.2013 was received from the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Unit (EOU), Patna along with certified copy of Charge-sheet No. 24/13 dated 27.07.2013 filed before the Court of Ld. SDJM, Patna, against the accused persons, namely, S/Shri Sunny Priyadarshi, Chandan Kumar @ Tinku Kumar, Krishna Rai, Surendra Tiwari, Prakash Roy and others for commission of offences under Section 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472, 473 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 66(D) and 66(E) of Information Technology Act, 2000 pertaining to FIR No. 13/2013 dated 01.04.2013.
On the basis of said information, Enforcement Directorate recorded ECIR No. PTZO/04/2013 dated 16.05.2013. On the basis of material on record, ED was satisfied that the accused, Shri Surendra Tiwary had acquired properties in his name as well as in the name of his wife, Smt. Savitri Devi and Shri Prakash Roy and Shri Jagan Nath Roy from the proceeds of crime and therefore it passed PAO No. 01/2015 dated 07.01.2015. Thereafter, Original Complaint No. 412/2015 was forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority along with the relied upon documents for confirmation of said attachment.
The Adjudicating Authority being satisfied with the allegations mentioned in the Original Complaint and the relied upon documents issued show-cause notice to the accused persons/defendants and after receiving the respective replies and hearing rival submissions, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the PAO vide its order dated 01.06.2015. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed the present appeals.
Arguments of the appellants:
3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants stressed that there is nothing on record to show that the said properties were purchased out of any proceeds of crime. He argued that appellants have properly explained the source of funds for acquiring the said properties as mentioned in detail in their respective replies filed before the Adjudicating Authority coupled with supporting documents including ITRs. He stressed that there is nothing on record that the appellants were in collusion with the main accused persons for committing the fraud as alleged. He contended that complainant has not produced any documentary evidence with regard to the image of the origina
