Tribunal quashes disproportionate property attachment, criticizes discrimination. Procedural non-compliance noted.

The tribunal quashed the order confirming the Provisional Attachment Order, finding the attachment of the appellant's residential property disproportionate and an abuse of process. The tribunal criticized the respondent for discrimination and non-application of mind, emphasizing the appellant's compliance with the burden of proof under the PML Act. Additionally, the tribunal highlighted procedural non-compliance by the Adjudicating Authority under the PML Act. Ultimately, the tribunal lifted the attachment of the appellant's property but clarified that pending complaints before the Special Court would not be affected, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the attachment of the appellant's residential property.
2. Allegations of financial loss to AAI and the subsequent FIR/ECIR.
3. Appellant's involvement and charges in the alleged crime.
4. Arbitration findings and their impact on the case.
5. Appellant's burden of proof under the PML Act.
6. Discrimination and non-application of mind by the respondent.
7. Compliance with procedural requirements under the PML Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the attachment of the appellant's residential property:
The appellant challenged the order dated 13.08.2018 by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 28.03.2018, attaching the appellant's residential property at 144, Golf Links, New Delhi. The property was attached to secure the alleged Proceeds of Crime (POC) amounting to Rs. 93,63,712/-. The tribunal found that attaching a property worth Rs. 50 crores for a POC of Rs. 93,63,712/- was disproportionate and amounted to abuse of process and harassment.

2. Allegations of financial loss to AAI and the subsequent FIR/ECIR:
The work contract for the Varanasi Airport expansion was awarded to M/s. Brite-Aricon (Consortium). An FIR was registered by the CBI, alleging a loss of Rs. 25,74,865/- to AAI due to fake bills and lesser quantity of materials used. This figure was later changed to Rs. 93,63,712.60/-. Based on this FIR, the Enforcement Directorate registered an ECIR for suspected POC.

3. Appellant's involvement and charges in the alleged crime:
The FIR/ECIR did not name the appellant as an accused. The CBI Court discharged the appellant from most charges, retaining only the charge under Section 420 IPC. The CBI Court framed charges against six other accused for forgery, cheating, criminal conspiracy, and offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. Arbitration findings and their impact on the case:
Disputes from the work contract were referred to arbitration. The Sole Arbitrator found that the work was completed satisfactorily, with no significant defects, and awarded compensation to the contractor. The Arbitrator's findings and the Performance Certificate issued by AAI supported the appellant's case that there was no loss to AAI.

5. Appellant's burden of proof under the PML Act:
The appellant argued that payments were made based on measurements, not vouchers, and provided evidence that the alleged POC was baseless. The tribunal agreed, noting the absence of contrary evidence from the respondent and the appellant's compliance with the burden of proof under Section 24 of the PML Act.

6. Discrimination and non-application of mind by the respondent:
The tribunal noted that the appellant was singled out for property attachment despite being discharged from most charges, while the other accused were not similarly treated. The tribunal criticized the respondent for a lack of proper investigation and arbitrary action in attaching the appellant's property.

7. Compliance with procedural requirements under the PML Act:
The tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority did not follow the prescribed procedure under Section 5 of the PML Act, as no reasons to believe were produced or served. The tribunal emphasized that PMLA is preventive, not punitive, and the appellant should not be compelled to secure the same amount of alleged POC with multiple agencies.

Conclusion:
The tribunal quashed the impugned order dated 13.08.2018 and the PAO dated 28.03.2018, lifting the attachment of the appellant's property. The tribunal clarified that this order would not affect the pending complaints before the Special Court. No costs were awarded.

---