Tribunal sets aside order, remands for re-adjudication within 180 days. Detailed examination of legal issues directed.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority for re-adjudication within 180 days. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to provide a detailed examination of the "reasons to believe" and other legal issues raised by the appellants. The attachments will continue, and both parties are to maintain the status quo of the attached properties during the proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in hearing the appeals.
2. Attachment of properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
3. Acquittal in scheduled offences and its impact on PMLA proceedings.
4. Validity of "reasons to believe" for attachment under PMLA.

Analysis of Judgment:

1. Delay in Hearing the Appeals
The appeals were delayed due to various adjournments requested by the appellants' counsel. The Tribunal received a directive from the Hon'ble Patna High Court to decide the pending appeals within three months, which was not communicated by the appellants. The Tribunal was informed via email by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and subsequently issued notices for hearings.

2. Attachment of Properties under PMLA
The appeals challenge the order confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued under Section 5(1) of PMLA, 2002. The properties attached include various immovable properties in the names of the appellants and movable assets, including LIC policies and bank account balances. The total value of attached assets is Rs. 4,23,61,990/-.

3. Acquittal in Scheduled Offences and Its Impact on PMLA Proceedings
The appellants argued that since appellant no.1 was acquitted in the scheduled offences, proceedings under PMLA should not survive. They relied on various judgments, including M/s. Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Directorate of Enforcement, which held that no proceedings under PMLA would lie once the accused is acquitted. However, the Tribunal noted that the judgment in M/s. Mahanivesh Oils is under challenge, and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in "M/s. VGN Developers P. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement" clarified that acquittal in scheduled offences does not impact PMLA proceedings, as they are distinct and independent.

4. Validity of "Reasons to Believe" for Attachment under PMLA
The appellants contended that the "reasons to believe" for the attachment were not properly recorded and were mechanical. The Tribunal referred to judgments, including J. Sekar vs. Union of India, which emphasized that "reasons to believe" must be recorded in writing and based on material evidence. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority did not adequately examine the satisfaction of the complainant regarding "reasons to believe" and merely restated the statutory language without proper justification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority for re-adjudication within 180 days. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to provide a detailed examination of the "reasons to believe" and other legal issues raised by the appellants. The attachments will continue, and both parties are to maintain the status quo of the attached properties during the proceedings.

---