Properties Released After Acquittal in NDPS Act Case; No Evidence of Crime Proceeds Under PMLA Act

The HC ruled that the attachment of properties by the 2nd respondent should be lifted following the appellate Tribunal's order. The petitioners, who purchased the properties without encumbrances, were entitled to have the attachments removed after the acquittal of the accused in the NDPS Act case. The Court found no evidence linking the properties to proceeds of crime under the PMLA Act, as the predicate offence did not survive post-acquittal. Consequently, the HC ordered the release of the properties, directing the registering authority to record the removal of the attachment. The Writ Petition was allowed without costs.

---

---

The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the 1st respondent should remove the attachment made by the 2nd respondent on certain properties based on the order of the appellate Tribunal for SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS, and PBPT Act.2. Whether the petitioners have the right to have the attachment on the properties removed after the appellate Tribunal's order to release the attached properties.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:The relevant legal framework and precedents in this case include the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act) and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).The Court's interpretation and reasoning were based on the fact that the petitioners had purchased the properties without any encumbrances, but the 2nd respondent attached the properties due to the involvement of the petitioner's vendor in a case under the NDPS Act. The appellate Tribunal subsequently directed the release of the attached properties as the accused was acquitted from the criminal case.Key evidence and findings included the order passed by the appellate Tribunal, the judgment of acquittal in the predicate offence under the NDPS Act, and the lack of evidence linking the properties to proceeds of crime through money laundering.The Court applied the law to the facts by recognizing that when the predicate offence does not survive due to acquittal, it cannot be presumed that the attached properties were purchased with proceeds of crime through money laundering. Therefore, the Court ordered the release of the attached properties based on the appellate Tribunal's decision.Competing arguments were presented by the petitioners seeking the removal of the attachment and the 2nd respondent arguing that the petitioners should have approached the Special Court as per the PMLA Act.Significant Holdings:The core principle established in this case is that when an accused is acquitted in a criminal case, the attached properties cannot be presumed to be proceeds of crime through money laundering. The final determination was that the attachment made by the 2nd respondent on the subject properties was raised in accordance with the appellate Tribunal's order, and the registering authority was directed to record the same.In conclusion, the Writ Petition was allowed with no costs, and the Court directed the release of the attached properties based on the appellate Tribunal's decision.

---