FINAL ORDER

12.03.2024 FPA-PMLA-3336&3337/KOL/2019 This appeal has been filed under Section 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short “the Act of 2002) against the order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority to confirm the provisional attachment order.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the provisional attachment order dated 11.04.2019 after ignoring the facts of the case and even the provisions of law applicable in reference to it. Without there being any evidence to prove a case of money laundering by the appellant, the order of attachment has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has given reference of the facts and submitted that the appellant is engaged in the business of Textile from the year 1985. The appellant company purchased the cloth and sold it after processing it in various parts of the country including Kolkata. The appellant was selling the cloth to many firms and individuals which include one Ajay Kumar Jain with whom they were having business activity since the year 2015. On supply of the cloths to Ajay Kumar Jain, the appellant raised the invoices against which due payment was made by Ajay Kumar Jain but taken to be the proceeds of crime. Shri Ajay Kumar Jain made the payment through the cheque in the bank account of the appellant firm yet the account aforesaid has been attached after registration of FIR by the CBI for the offences under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468,471 of IPC and Section 7, 13 (2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against Amitesh Kumar Sinha, Sanjay Jain and Manoj Gupta.

4. The allegation against the accused was that they conspired to create bank accounts in the name of non-existing companies such as M/s Indian Traders, M/s Kolkata Suppliers and M/s Ganesh International, etc. It was by producing fake and fabricated documents to open the bank accounts and ultimately to deposit the demonetised currency worth of more than seven crores in those bank accounts. The demonetised money was deposited in the bank accounts to channelize it with active support of the bank official against whom the charge sheet was filed after their arrest. However, the appellant is not an accused therein. He had sold the cloths to Ajay Kumar Jain and in lieu thereof received the payment through cheques fromM/s Indian Traders, M/s Kolkata Suppliers and other companies with whom the appellant had no business transactions which also include M/s Ganesh International.

5. The payment towards the supply of cloths made to Ajay Kumar Jain was through the companies named above and if demonetised currency was used by depositing cash in bank accounts of the non- existing companies, the appellant had no knowledge. Rather, he received the due amount on the supply of the cloths and it was in his own bank account. Thus, with no stretch of imagination, the amount received by the appellant could have been attached by the respondents treating it to be the proceeds of crime. However, ignoring the facts and material on record, Adjudicating Authority confirmed the order of attachment.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has made reference of invoices raised on Ajay Kumar Jain so as to justify receipt of payment. It is with a further statement that the appellant was having business with Ajay Kumar Jain since the year 2015. In view of the above, the attachment deserves to be interfered. It is more so when the appellant has not been made accused in the FIR and even in the charge sheet. The prayer is accordingly to set aside the order and allow the appeal.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the money attached by the respondents is tainted money, thus no interference in the impugned order be made. Referring to the facts of this case, it is submitted that one Sanjay Jain in connivance with other accused channelized the demonetised money given by Ajay Kumar Jain on