TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 860
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent case as well as FIR being I-C.R. No. 3 of 2010 has also been registered against the present appellant. 3. The allegations leveled against the appellant, interalia, in the aforesaid FIR are to the effect that the appellant has allegedly misused his powers as a Collector and has allotted lands to Welspun group of companies at a much cheaper rate. It is alleged in the FIR that the appellant has allotted land to the Welspun group of companies at the rate of Rs. 15 per square meter in comparison to the market rate of Rs. 78 per square meter. It is also alleged in the FIR that by such acts of the appellant, loss to the tune of Rs. 1.20 crores has been caused to the public exchequer. In the second FIR, the allegations, interalia, against the appellant are that he accepted illegal gratification in the form of payment of bills of mobile connection in the name of an office of Welspun group of companies and used by the appellant, to the tune of Rs. 2.20 lacs(approximately). 4. The respondent had registered case vide ECIR/01/AZO/2012 dated 12.03.2012 on the basis of the FIR No. 03/2010 dated 31.03.2010 under sections 7,11,13(1)B & 13(2) and FIR No. 09/2010 dated 25.09.2010 under sections....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x+Investment) 11.01.2008 Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 20253223.55 (14578.53+157640.09+ 635561.10+1245443.83 Rs. 282955 (66769 + 216186) Rs. 18,70,268.55 7. It was the case of the respondent that it is evident that the deposition made by Mr. Sunil Milak in his statements is of facts, as is confirmative to the documents produced by him, there was no force in the allegation made by the appellant that the statements recorded of Mr. Sunil Milak were under duress. The appellant"s property i.e. 35% part of the house at 465 A-2, Sector 1, Gandhi Nagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat was attached. 8. The Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the attachment order PAO No. 11/2014 dated 29.09.2014 vide order dated 13.01.2015 in the absence of appellant and his reply. 9. The said order now has been challenged by the appellant interalia on various grounds. It is alleged by the appellant that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as also the provisions of the PMLA. The appellant, during the entire tenure of the proceedings before the learned adjudicating authority, was in judicial custody. The appellant was arrested on the night of 29/09/2014 and w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce as well as the Enforcement Directorate are filed herewith for the perusal of the Hon. Tribunal which would show that the different statements suggest that Mr. Sunil Millak is a person completely in the hands of the respondent authorities and is ready to say anything that suits the respondent authority. The documents as suited to the prosecution have been produced by Mr. Sunil Millak before the respondent herein, wherein the said Mr. Sunil Millak has filed different documents before other statutory authorities. This goes to show the falsity in the story of the respondent authority against the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Adjudicating Authority is required to be quashed and set aside. 10. It is specially mentioned in the ground of appeal that the appellant is ready and willing to disclose the sources of funds utilised in acquiring the properties attached by way of the impugned order. The impugned proceedings are an extended attempt of the authorities to ensure that the appellant is not in a position to enjoy the only residential property owned by the appellant and that the appellant is made to run from pillar to post even for his basic necessity of a re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re considered while passing the new order. Further, the original complaint in that regard is also filed before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority being O.C. No. 647 of 2016 and the matter had been fixed for first hearing on 05.12.2016. 13. The said matter in connection with the remaining arguments in regard to 65% properties is pending before the Adjudicating Authority and the next date of hearing was fixed in the second week of January, 2017 as informed by the counsel for the parties. In view of such circumstances and subsequent events, the learned counsel for the appellant has made his submissions and it is contended by him that principles of natural justice has not been complied by the respondent which deprived the right of the appellant to defend the case in a matter in which his residential house was being attached. It is submitted that there was sufficient time available to the Adjudicating Authority to grant one more opportunity to the appellant to file the reply and to hear the matter on merits. However the Adjudicating Authority in arbitrary and whimsical manner exercised his powers to pass the order without granting the final opportunity to file the reply and to hear the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any person is in possession of any proceeds of crime; (b) such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime under this Chapter, he may, by order in writing, provisionally attach such property for a period not exceeding 9 [one hundred and eighty days] from the date of the order, in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that no such order of attachment shall be made unless, in relation to the scheduled offence, a report has been forwarded to a Magistrate under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or a complaint has been filed by a person authorized to investigate the offence mentioned in that Schedule, before a Magistrate or court for taking cognizance of the scheduled offence, as the case may be, or a similar report or complaint has been made or filed under the corresponding law of any other country: Provided further that, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b), any property of any person may be attached under this section if the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....how cause why all or any of such properties should not be declared to be the properties involved in money-laundering and confiscated by the Central Government. Provided that where a notice under this sub-section specifies any property as being held by a person on behalf of any other person, a copy of such notice shall also be served upon such other person. Provided further that where such property is held jointly by more than one person, such notice shall be served to all persons holding such property. (2) The Adjudicating Authority shall, after- (a) considering the reply, if any, to the notice issued under sub-section (1) (b) hearing the aggrieved person and the Director or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf, and (c) taking into account all relevant materials placed on record before him by an order, record a finding whether all or any of the properties referred to in the notice issued under sub-section-(1) are involved in money- laundering: Provided that if the property is claimed by a person, other than a person to whom the notice had been issued, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olved in the offence of money-laundering after having regard to the material before it. 16. It is not in dispute that the appellant was in custody during the proceedings initiated against him except between 1st to 5th January, 2015 when he was on interim bail on the ground of serious illness of his mother. It is also not disputed that dispute pertaining to the present appeal is in connection with the 35% of the property which is residential property of the appellant and new order has been passed in connection with the remaining 65% of the same property where the proceedings are pending before the Adjudicating Authority for confirmation and the next date of hearing is fixed for 10th January, 2017. It is also not in dispute that when the order was passed, the Adjudicating Authority has still 74 days period of time to pass the confirmation order. However, the hearing officer has chosen not to grant any further adjournment in the matter and ultimately passed the order on merits against the appellant without granting the opportunity to file the reply and hear the counsel for the appellant. 17. The letter written by the appellant who was then in jail to the respondent requesting for an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the order of the confirmation is to be passed as already taken in the earlier order passed on 35% of the same vary property and therefore opportunity is to be given to the appellant to defend the case before the Adjudicating Authority. 20. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no doubt there is a falsehood in the submission made on behalf of the appellant in ground B and the appellant has not made the correct statement. The respondent has also filed the additional reply on 19th December, 2016. In the additional reply it was submitted that the appellant was served in person on 18th November, 2014. The hearing was fixed on 31st December, 2014 and the matter was adjourned to 12th January, 2015. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that the office of the respondent had served the letter about the date of hearing on 12th January, 2015 upon the appellant at his residential premises when he was on interim bail for five days for the period of 1st January, 2015 to 5th January, 2015. During that period he could engage the service of the Advocate to file the reply before the Adjudicating Authority and argue the matter on h....