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>Tribunal sets aside Provisional Attachment Order and impugned order, releases attached properties to appellants. Acquittal in related case deemed conclusive.</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside both the Provisional Attachment Order dated 27.09.2016 and the impugned order dated 20.12.2016. The ... Second trial under PMLA for the same offence/allegations against the appellant - Held that:- Once the appellant Sri Chandrashekhar has been acquitted by the Special Court under the Schedule Offence after the trial and no appeal has been filed by the State against the said Judgement (as informed by the parties), the appeal is liable to be allowed. The complaint under schedule offence was decided on merit after recording the evidence whereby FIR and charge sheet have been quashed by the Special Court. Once the acquittal order is passed against the appellant holding that he was not involved in the Prevention of Corruption Act and he has purchased/ acquired the properties in legal resources, the question of money laundering does not arise. The allegations are same and ECIR was registered on the basis of charge sheet. There were only two options left after acquittal, either to file the appeal against the judgement and the trial under PMLA ought to have been conducted along with the trial with the case registered under schedule offence. The respondent apparently did not make efforts in this regard. Issues Involved:1. Confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order.2. Allegations of disproportionate assets.3. Acquittal in the Prevention of Corruption Act case.4. Validity of proceedings under PMLA post-acquittal.5. Application of amended provisions of PMLA.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order:The appeals were filed under Section 26 of PMLA, 2002, challenging the order dated 20.12.2016 by the Adjudicating Authority, which confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order No. 17/2016 dated 22.9.2016. The appellants argued that the confirmation was based solely on the FIR and charge sheet filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. Allegations of Disproportionate Assets:The Karnataka Lokayukta Police registered an FIR against Sri Chandrashekar for possessing assets worth Rs. 83,82,877/- disproportionate to his known sources of income. The charge sheet alleged that from 1984 to 2010, he amassed assets and incurred expenses totaling Rs. 1,24,25,172/-, while his known income was Rs. 52,73,662/-, resulting in disproportionate assets of Rs. 71,51,510/-.3. Acquittal in the Prevention of Corruption Act Case:The Special Judge (Lokayukta) and Principal Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, acquitted Sri Chandrashekar on 21.04.2017, finding him not guilty under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court determined that only Rs. 5,77,372/- remained unexplained, which was less than 10% of his total income, and thus, not significant enough to justify a conviction.4. Validity of Proceedings Under PMLA Post-Acquittal:The Tribunal noted that the acquittal in the Prevention of Corruption Act case rendered the Provisional Attachment Order invalid. The Tribunal emphasized that the allegations were the same in both the Prevention of Corruption Act case and the PMLA proceedings. Since no appeal was filed against the acquittal, the attachment of properties under PMLA had no legal basis.5. Application of Amended Provisions of PMLA:The appellants argued that the amended provisions of Section 8(3)(b) of PMLA, effective from 15.02.2013, were not applicable to their case, which was initiated in 2010. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the amended provisions were prospective and not applicable to cases registered before the amendment.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside both the Provisional Attachment Order dated 27.09.2016 and the impugned order dated 20.12.2016. The properties attached under the provisional order were ordered to be released to the appellants. The Tribunal concluded that the acquittal in the Prevention of Corruption Act case negated the basis for the PMLA proceedings, as the allegations and evidence were the same in both cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
