Provisional attachment under money-laundering law upheld where predicate offences, scheduled offence status, and recorded reasons to believe were established.

Absence of a charge-sheet in every predicate FIR did not defeat ECIR recording or provisional attachment where charge-sheets had in fact been filed in some connected FIRs and the material still disclosed predicate offences. Section 420 IPC was already a scheduled offence when the FIRs and ECIR were registered, so the ECIR was not invalid on that ground. The tribunal also held that the burden was not wrongly shifted: investigation material, including Section 50 statements, supported a prima facie money-laundering case and the attached property's source had to be explained by the persons in possession. Provisional attachment was sustained because recorded reasons to believe existed and charge-sheet filing under Section 173 CrPC was not the sole condition. The attachment and confirmation order were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether absence of charge-sheet in all the predicate FIRs defeated the recording of ECIR and the attachment proceedings; (ii) Whether the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code could be treated as a scheduled offence for the relevant ECIR and attachment; (iii) Whether the burden of proof under the money-laundering law was wrongly shifted on the appellants; (iv) Whether provisional attachment could be sustained in the absence of a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether absence of charge-sheet in all the predicate FIRs defeated the recording of ECIR and the attachment proceedings.

Analysis: Four charge-sheets had in fact been filed in respect of the FIRs registered in 2010 and 2011, and the adjudicating record reflected those filings. Non-filing of a charge-sheet in relation to one FIR did not negate the existence of predicate offences where the material disclosed commission of the scheduled crime and the prosecution complaint had also been filed. The ruling in Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary did not support the proposition that absence of a charge-sheet automatically erases the predicate offence.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code could be treated as a scheduled offence for the relevant ECIR and attachment.

Analysis: The relevant amendment bringing Section 420 within the schedule had already come into force before the FIRs and ECIR in question. The premise that the offence was added only later was incorrect. Accordingly, the ECIR was not vitiated for want of a scheduled offence.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the burden of proof under the money-laundering law was wrongly shifted on the appellants.

Analysis: The record showed material gathered during investigation, including statements under Section 50, supporting a prima facie case of money-laundering. The impugned orders were based on such material, and the source of the attached property was required to be explained by the persons in possession of it. The appellants did not dislodge the material relied upon by the authority.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (iv): Whether provisional attachment could be sustained in the absence of a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 5(1) permits provisional attachment on the basis of recorded reasons to believe, and the second proviso independently authorises attachment where immediate action is necessary to prevent frustration of proceedings. The authority had recorded such reasons. Therefore, filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173 was not the sole condition for provisional attachment.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned attachment and confirmation order were upheld, and the appeals were rejected in their entirety.

---