Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The AT upheld the provisional attachment order against appellant's property despite being issued 190 days after the PAO, as the intervening COVID-19 period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) was properly excluded per SC's suo moto order. The tribunal confirmed that properties can be attached even when held by non-accused individuals who possess proceeds of crime, following Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. The appellant failed to prove legitimate cash payment of 14,00,000 to the main accused, while evidence showed the appellant received 5,00,000 and an RTGS transfer of 14,00,000 from the accused, which was subsequently transferred to a company owned by the same accused-establishing the appellant's role in layering and laundering proceeds of crime. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.