Attachment under SAFEMA upheld, while limited protective possession of an unused flat was restored to preserve the property pending trial.
The Tribunal declined to interfere with confirmation of attachment, holding that it could not reappraise investigative material in a way that would prejudice either side and leaving the appellant to prove lawful acquisition before the trial court. It nevertheless granted limited protective possession of the flat because it was lying unused and deteriorating, directing restoration only for preservation, with status quo safeguards and control over rental income pending final trial.
Issues: (i) Whether the attachment confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority was liable to be interfered with in appeal on the ground that the properties were acquired from lawful sources; (ii) whether limited protective possession of the flat could be restored to prevent deterioration pending trial.
Issue (i): Whether the attachment confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority was liable to be interfered with in appeal on the ground that the properties were acquired from lawful sources.
Analysis: The appellant was charge-sheeted for offences involving disproportionate assets, criminal misconduct and misappropriation. In appeal against confirmation of attachment, the Tribunal found that it could not reassess or re-evaluate the evidence collected during investigation in a manner that would prejudice either side. The appellant was left at liberty to establish his defence before the trial court.
Conclusion: The confirmation of attachment was not interfered with and this issue was decided against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether limited protective possession of the flat could be restored to prevent deterioration pending trial.
Analysis: The flat was stated to be lying unused and deteriorating. The Tribunal accepted the request for restoration of possession only for the limited purpose of preservation, while safeguarding the property by requiring maintenance of status quo and regulating any rental income until the trial attained finality.
Conclusion: Possession of the flat was directed to be restored to the appellant subject to protective conditions, which was in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the challenge to the attachment, but a limited interim protective relief was granted for one identified property to preserve it pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
