FINAL ORDER

26.11.2024

FPA-PMLA-2610,2648&2651/PTN/2018

By 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 18.09.2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 31.03.2018.

2. The movable and immovable properties of different appellants attached by the respondent are as under:

A. Immovable Property:-

B. Movable Property:-

Available closing balance in the following bank accounts held in the name of Ashok Yadav and his family members: -

3. The statement quoted above shows that the properties attached by the respondent are largely belonging to Bibha Devi and Rajendra Yadav leaving few properties in the name of Ashok Yadav, Birendra Yadav and Ahilya Devi.

4. The properties were attached after recording the ECIR pursuant to the FIRs registered against the main accused Ashok Yadav. In all, 26 FIRs were registered against the accused Ashok Yadav wherein he is said to have been acquitted in majority of cases leaving two cases pending against him and out of which one is largely for commission of crime under the Arms Act.

5. The impugned order records facts about the death of Shri Birendra Yadav. No appeal has been preferred through the legal heirs who could have been Ahilya Devi despite the fact that Ahilya Devi has preferred separate appeal as she was also served with Show Cause Notice by the Adjudicating Authority. So far as Rajendra Yadav is concerned, he has also died but no application has been filed to bring his legal heirs on record in the appeal preferred by him within the stipulated time. The appeal was thus abated and accordingly it was dismissed by this Tribunal on 24.07.2024.

6. The total value of the properties taken by the respondent was of Rs.75,87,674/-. It is said to have been acquired by Ashok Yadav in his own name as well as in the name of his wife Bibha Devi,father Rajendra Yadav, brother Birendra Yadav and sister- in-law Ahilya Devi.

7. A challenge to the order of attachment and its confirmation has been made by the appellants mainly on the ground that accused Ashok Yadav has already been acquitted in 20 cases and he was not an accused in 4 cases leaving only two cases out of which one case is mainly for commission of crime under the Arms Act. In the light of the acquittal of the main accused, properties attached by the respondent could not have been taken to be the `proceeds of crime’. The challenge to Provisional Attachment Order and its confirmation has been made mainly on the aforesaid grounds.

8. The counsel for the appellantsfurther admitted that ECIR was separately recorded and the cognizance of offence has been taken but the charges have not been framed till date. TheECIR recorded by the respondent would have no consequence on the main accused Ashok Yadav after his acquittal in majority of the cases. However, it was admitted by the counsel that the cognizance order has been challenged but we do not find any order favourable to the appellant thus, it is a fact that not only the ECIR remains but cognizance of offence has been taken against the appellant.

9. Further submission of the counsel for the appellants was that the `reasons to believe’ was not served on the appellants thereby Section 8 of the Act of 2002 was not followed by the Adjudicating Authority for passing the order to confirm the Provisional Attachment Order. A reference of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of J. Sekar Vs. Union of Inia reported inMANU/DE/0075/2018has been given.

10. The counsel for the appellants did not raise any other argument than referred above and ac