Provisional attachment of cash needs a clear nexus to proceeds of crime; bona fide land transactions may shift focus to the property.

Provisional attachment of seized cash under SAFEMA could not be sustained where the appellants were not named in the predicate offence and no adequate nexus was shown between the cash and any proceeds of crime. The attachment was therefore interfered with. As to the disputed land transaction, where an agreement to sell had been executed, possession handed over, and consideration paid, the controversy was treated as referable to the underlying land rather than the already-received consideration. The Tribunal noted that part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act supported the transaction's character and permitted the respondents to proceed against the land after notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the provisional attachment of cash seized from the appellant could be sustained as proceeds of crime; (ii) whether the attachment ought to be continued against the consideration received in the disputed land transaction or instead be directed to the underlying land.

Issue (i): whether the provisional attachment of cash seized from the appellant could be sustained as proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The appellants were not named as accused in the predicate offence and their purchase and subsequent sale of the land, to the extent not in dispute, were found to be through lawful transactions. The cash attachment was not supported by any adequate nexus showing that the seized cash itself represented proceeds of crime. The record also showed that the attached amount arose in the course of a land transaction and not from any independent criminal activity attributable to the appellants.

Conclusion: The attachment of cash was not justified and was interfered with.

Issue (ii): whether the attachment ought to be continued against the consideration received in the disputed land transaction or instead be directed to the underlying land.

Analysis: The disputed amount related to the remaining parcel of land for which an agreement to sell had been executed, possession had been handed over, and full consideration had been paid, though the formal sale deed was pending because of civil litigation. In such circumstances, the controversy was essentially linked to the land itself, and the attachment could appropriately be pursued against that property after notice to the concerned purchaser. The Tribunal also took note that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 supported the nature of the transaction as one involving part performance.

Conclusion: The attachment was not to continue against the consideration already received, and the respondents were permitted to proceed against the underlying land in accordance with law after notice.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in substantial part, with relief granted against the cash attachment and directions issued to release the attached movable property upon compliance with the undertaking regarding the disputed land.

Ratio Decidendi: Where consideration has already been received in a bona fide land transaction and the dispute is essentially referable to the underlying property, provisional attachment must have a clear nexus to the proceeds of crime, and an unsupported attachment of cash cannot be sustained.

---