TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Orders Return of Petitioner's Properties Due to Invalid Attachment Orders</h1> The court directed the release and return of the petitioner's properties, concluding that the provisional attachment orders did not hold good. The ... Proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - provisional attachment orders - Held that:- Admittedly, the petitioner was never an accused in the CBI case nor any finger was pointed at the petitioner in the charge sheet filed by CBI. Perusal of the facts including the statement of witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The Court cannot overlook the facts that the properties of the petitioner were purchased in the year 2007 and duly reflected in the income tax returns. After perusal of the statement of witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the Court cannot act like a mute spectator to the illegal acts of the agency. Admittedly, the respondent, Enforcement Directorate has no other legally admissible evidence against the petitioner. After carefully examining all the facts and records of the case including statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses relied upon by the respondent and the closure report filed by CBI before the Special Judge, CBI, Dehradun which was accepted vide order dated 21.08.2014 as well as the order of the High Court of Uttrakhand dated 13.10.2014 quashing the entire proceedings qua the accused, Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra in the said case and in the light of Crl. M.C. No.5581/2014 Page 13 of 13 the retrospective aspect this Court finds no merit in the allegation of the respondent. Consequently, the provisional attachment of properties of the petitioner vide provisional attachment order No.01/2012 dated 25.10.2012 and vide provisional attachment order No.02/2013 dated 30.08.2013 does not hold good and the respondent is directed to release the properties and give the possession back to the petitioner. Issues Involved:1. Quashing of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).2. Legality of property attachment by the Enforcement Directorate.3. Retrospective application of penal laws.4. Validity of the evidence and investigation process.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of Proceedings under PMLA:The petitioner sought the quashing of proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, based on ECIR No. 03/DZ/2011/AD(SC)/SDS dated 24.02.2011. The prosecution's case involved a conspiracy by Punjab National Bank (PNB) employees and others to misappropriate funds through fictitious accounts, leading to a pecuniary gain of Rs. 10,88,987 and a loss to PNB. The CBI registered an FIR (RC No. 0072011A0003) against several individuals, including Arun Kumar Mishra. The Enforcement Directorate initiated proceedings under PMLA, given the amount involved exceeded Rs. 30 lakhs, the threshold for Part B of PMLA-2002.2. Legality of Property Attachment by the Enforcement Directorate:The petitioner's properties in Dehradun and Delhi were attached through provisional attachment orders dated 25.10.2012 and 30.08.2013, respectively. The petitioner argued that the properties were falsely attributed to Arun Kumar Mishra based on the CBI charge sheet and that multiple properties were unnecessarily attached. The petitioner contended that the Enforcement Directorate misused the properties, and the basis for the ECIR ceased to exist following the CBI's closure report and the Uttarakhand High Court's quashing of proceedings against Arun Kumar Mishra.3. Retrospective Application of Penal Laws:The petitioner argued that the offences under Section 120-B IPC and Section 13 PC Act were included in the PMLA schedule only from 01.06.2009, after the alleged offences (November 2005 to December 2006). The court referred to the principle that no person can be prosecuted based on laws introduced after the alleged incident, as per Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The court cited 'Tech Mahindra's case,' emphasizing that retrospective application of criminal liability is not permissible.4. Validity of the Evidence and Investigation Process:The petitioner highlighted that the CBI's closure report dated 08.08.2014 and the Uttarakhand High Court's order dated 13.10.2014 quashed proceedings against Arun Kumar Mishra, undermining the basis for the ECIR. Witness statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. indicated coercion by the investigating officer to implicate Arun Kumar Mishra falsely. The court noted that the petitioner was not an accused in the CBI case, and the properties were purchased in 2007, duly reflected in income tax returns. The court found no legally admissible evidence against the petitioner and observed that the Enforcement Directorate's actions were unjustified.Conclusion:The court directed the release and return of the petitioner's properties, concluding that the provisional attachment orders did not hold good. The petition was disposed of, and the application was dismissed as infructuous.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
