Benami property verification: insufficient hallmark and invoice evidence defeated provisional attachment, leading to relief for the proprietor.

Whether seized jewellery constituted benami property turned on evidential verification: inspection against invoices, hallmarks and seller records identified only four items traceable to the seller while the remainder were held to be personal and not identifiable in seller records; invoices and photographs produced by the appellant were acknowledged and a disclosed beneficial interest had been declared under an amnesty scheme. Applying documentary corroboration and identification principles, the Initiating Officer's material was held insufficient to sustain provisional attachment, resulting in setting aside the attachment and allowing the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment of jewellery seized from the appellant under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 is sustainable as benami property.

Analysis: The matter was examined by verifying the seized jewellery against invoices, hallmarks and the records of M/s Senco Gold Limited through an inspection in the presence of the appellant, witnesses and a Senco representative. The inspection identified only four items as traceable to Senco Gold Ltd. by hallmark and internal sale records; the balance of the jewellery was found to be personal and not identifiable from Senco records. The appellant furnished invoices and photographs which were acknowledged during the verification. The identified beneficial owner had made subsequent disclosures under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, 2016. In light of the verification findings and documentary corroboration, the material produced by the Initiating Officer was insufficient to sustain that the seized jewellery was benami property.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment of the seized jewellery under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 is not sustainable; the impugned order confirming the attachment is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.

---