Release of excess proceeds of crime cannot be refused merely because a challenge to reduced quantification is pending.

Excess proceeds of crime recovered after a reduced quantification before the Adjudicating Authority were held liable for release to the appellant unless restrained by any order in the respondent's challenge. The refusal to release the amount was unsustainable because it rested only on the pendency of the respondent's appeal and did not assess any prima facie merit in that challenge. The merits of the pending challenge could not be adjudicated in the appellant's release application. The excess amount was directed to be released on furnishing an equivalent bank guarantee, subject to the outcome of the respondent's pending appeal/application.

---

---

Issues: Whether the excess amount recovered as proceeds of crime was liable to be released to the appellant pending adjudication of the respondent's challenge to the reduced quantification.

Analysis: The appellant had obtained a reduction in the quantified amount of proceeds of crime before the Adjudicating Authority and was therefore entitled to the consequential release of the excess amount, unless restrained by any order passed in the respondent's challenge. The refusal to release the amount rested only on the pendency of the respondent's appeal, without any consideration of the prima facie merits of that appeal. The merits of the respondent's challenge could not be decided in the appellant's application, and the impugned refusal was based on an irrelevant consideration.

Conclusion: The excess amount was directed to be released to the appellant on furnishing a bank guarantee of an equivalent sum, and the amount was made subject to the outcome of the respondent's pending appeal/application.

---