Provisional attachment limited to quantified proceeds of crime where supporting material did not sustain the wider allegation.

Provisional attachment under SAFEMA must be confined to the presently quantified proceeds of crime and cannot rest on an unsubstantiated larger allegation. The Tribunal held that the material supported attachment only to the extent of the quantified bribe-money component, while the separate allegation concerning purchase and rental of two shops was not accepted as the basis for a wider attachment because the supplementary charge sheet did not sustain it. The surviving allegation of bribe receipt remained relevant, but it did not justify extending attachment beyond the amount presently supported by the record. The attachment was therefore limited to the quantified amount, with the criminal trial left to determine the matter finally.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the provisional attachment could be sustained beyond the quantified proceeds of crime said to arise from the alleged bribe money. (ii) Whether the challenge based on the allegation relating to purchase and rental of two shops displaced the basis of attachment.

Issue (i): Whether the provisional attachment could be sustained beyond the quantified proceeds of crime said to arise from the alleged bribe money.

Analysis: The attachment was examined on the footing that the alleged proceeds of crime could presently be quantified only with reference to the bribe amount attributed to the appellant. The material placed before the Tribunal did not support the larger figure suggested by the respondent, and the alleged shop transaction was not accepted as a fortified basis in the supplementary charge sheet. The Tribunal treated the attachment as provisional and confined the present justification to the quantified bribe amount, leaving the criminal trial to determine the matter finally.

Conclusion: The attachment could be justified only to the extent of Rs. 3,98,000/- and not beyond that quantified amount.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge based on the allegation relating to purchase and rental of two shops displaced the basis of attachment.

Analysis: The supplementary charge sheet did not sustain the allegation that the shops had been purchased at an undervalue, and the Tribunal therefore did not accept that allegation as the present foundation for attachment. However, the main accusation of receipt of bribe money for issuance of arms licences still remained, and the attachment was examined on that surviving basis rather than on the disputed shop transaction.

Conclusion: The shop-purchase allegation did not defeat the attachment, but it did confine the attachment to the proved or presently quantified bribe amount only.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by limiting the provisional attachment to the quantified bribe-money component and leaving the remaining attached property outside that figure to be dealt with in accordance with the trial outcome.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisional attachment must be restricted to the presently quantified proceeds of crime and cannot be sustained on an unfortified or unsubstantiated allegation when the supporting charge-sheet material does not bear it out.

---