Benami attachment cannot extend to an abettor's own assets without proof the assets themselves are benami property.

Provisional attachment under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act is confined to property shown to be benami, whether held by the benamidar or the beneficial owner. A finding that a person merely abetted the transaction does not, by itself, justify attaching that person's independent assets unless those assets are specifically found to be benami property. Here, the underlying transaction was found benami and the appellant's role as abettor was maintained, but the order did not record the necessary finding that the attached properties themselves were benami. The attachment of those properties was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the provisional attachment of the appellant's properties could be sustained once he was found to be only an abettor and not the beneficial owner, in the absence of a specific finding that the attached properties themselves were benami properties. (ii) Whether the finding that the underlying transaction was benami and that the appellant had acted as an abettor justified continued attachment of his properties.

Issue (i): Whether the provisional attachment of the appellant's properties could be sustained once he was found to be only an abettor and not the beneficial owner, in the absence of a specific finding that the attached properties themselves were benami properties.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the nature of the property sought to be attached. The Act contemplates attachment of benami property, whether in the hands of the benamidar or the beneficial owner. A mere finding that a person facilitated the transaction as an abettor does not, by itself, authorise attachment of his independent assets unless those assets are shown to be benami property. The impugned order continued attachment of the appellant's holdings without recording such a specific finding.

Conclusion: The attachment of the appellant's properties could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside in his favour.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding that the underlying transaction was benami and that the appellant had acted as an abettor justified continued attachment of his properties.

Analysis: The order recorded that the currency was deposited in the benamidar's account and transferred onward on the false pretext of bullion sales, and that the appellant had facilitated the arrangement. That finding supported the characterisation of the transaction as benami and the appellant's role as abettor. However, that conclusion attracted the statutory consequences applicable to abetment and did not cure the absence of proof that the appellant's own properties were benami.

Conclusion: The benami nature of the transaction and the appellant's role as abettor were not disturbed, but they did not justify attachment of his properties.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the attachment provision could not be applied to the appellant's assets without proof that those assets were benami property, even though the finding of abetment remained operative for the purposes of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, provisional attachment is confined to property proved to be benami, and it cannot be extended to an abettor's independent assets solely on the basis of his participation in the transaction.

---