Provisional attachment requires nexus to proceeds of crime; disputed acquisition date can sustain attachment pending proof.

Provisional attachment under the Act requires a nexus with proceeds of crime, and an order is not invalid merely because the statutory basis is not separately elaborated where the order itself records that basis. Property allegedly acquired before the scheduled offence cannot be attached if it has no connection with criminal activity, but where the date of acquisition is disputed and remains unproved, the attachment will not be disturbed at the appellate stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the provisional attachment could be invalidated for want of a clear invocation of the statutory basis and by applying the rule against supplementation of reasons; (ii) Whether property allegedly acquired before the scheduled offence could be attached as proceeds of crime or as property of equivalent value under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the provisional attachment could be invalidated for want of a clear invocation of the statutory basis and by applying the rule against supplementation of reasons.

Analysis: The provisional attachment order itself recorded that the immovable property was being treated as value of proceeds of crime under the statutory definition and was liable for immediate attachment under the attachment provision. On that basis, the challenge founded on the rule against post hoc supplementation of reasons was not accepted.

Conclusion: The objection based on absence of reasons failed.

Issue (ii): Whether property allegedly acquired before the scheduled offence could be attached as proceeds of crime or as property of equivalent value under the Act.

Analysis: The statutory definition of proceeds of crime requires a connection with criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The attachment power is confined to property derived or obtained from such activity or to the value of such property, and unconnected property cannot be attached merely because the accused is involved in crime. The Court reconciled the authorities to hold that property with no nexus to the scheduled offence is not attachable, but the present case involved a factual dispute as to when the property was actually acquired and registered, which required evidence.

Conclusion: The appellant did not establish, at this stage, that the attached property was acquired before the crime so as to exclude attachment.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the disputed factual question regarding the date of acquisition of the property had not been proved in the appellant's favour, and the attachment was not set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Property can be provisionally attached only if it bears a nexus to proceeds of crime as defined under the Act, but where the date of acquisition is itself disputed and remains unproved, the attachment will not be interfered with in appeal.

---