TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 32
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PA-PMLA-385/BNG/2012 1. By this common order, we propose to decide above-mentioned four appeals filed by the appellants. 2. Syndicate Bank is one of the respondent in the appeals. The bank was not served with any notice which is mandatory u/s 8(2) of the Act despite of being aggrieved party. 3. The brief facts are that on complaint of Chief Vigilance Officer; Syndicate Bank, Corporate Office, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore, regarding fraudulent transactions in the sanction and dispersal of Synd Jaikisan Loan and other credit facility, CBI registered a case on 15.04.2009 against Shri H.M. Swamy, the then Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank, Mandya Branch, Distt. Mandya, Shri Asdulla Khan, of Gandhi Nagar, Mandya and others for the offences punishable under sections 120-B read with 409, 420, 467, 471 IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act 1988. 3.1. On completion of the investigation CBI, BS&FC Bangalore, filed a charge sheet under section 173 Cr. PC against Shri H.M. Swamy, Ashadulla Khan, P.K. Vitthaldas, Shri Ayub Pasha, Shri Najamodeen, Smt. Ayesha Najam, Smt Naseemunnissa, and Smt. Nasreen Taj, for the offences punishable under section 120B read with 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove towards the construction of the house at plot measuring 37X60 ft at No. D-4/132, 5th Cross, Gandhinagar, Mandya City, Mandya held in the name of Smt. Ayesha Najam and had also stated that he had incurred a sum of Rs. 1 crore and above in Construction of the factory M/s Faraha Industries and have spent a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs towards purchase of machinery from out of the money received from Syndicate Bank, Ashok Nagar, Mandya. 3.5 In his further statement dated 27.02.2012 it is further stated that, in addition to the investments made towards construction of house in the name of Smt. Ayesha Najam and jnvestments towards construction of M/s Faraah Industry in the name of Smt. Ayesha Najam and purchase of dry and wet land in the name of Smt Nasreen Taj at Pandavapura, he had made 'investment of Rs. 35 Lakhs in M/s GAD Industries, No. 50-D, KIADB Industrial Area, Tubinakere, Mandya from the money so derived from Syndicate Bank, Mandya towards construction of the said M/s GAD Industries held in the name of his mother-in-law Smt. Zareen Taj. He has further stated that he has made all the payments in cash only towards civil construction of the factory and the investment in the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... correct and true, and also stated that all the financial matters were handled by her husband Mr. Asadulla Khan and she was aware about all the transactions/loan availed and defaultment that had been done to Syndicate Bank, Mandya. Further she has confirmed to the fact that Properties at Sl. No. 51/7, 51/6, 51/9, 51/2, 51/8 & 52/1; at Panduvapura taluk, Kasab Hobli Doddabyadrahalli, Mandya District was bought by-her husband Shri. Asadulla Khan in her name from out of the money derived from Syndicate Bank. 4. It is evident from the various statements recorded u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002 that Shri Asadulla Khan and his wives have defaulted in making repayment to the Syndicate Bank and thereby resulted in the loss to the Bank. Shri Asadulla Khan himself and his wives have confirmed to the fact that the properties were purchased from out of the money so derived from Syndicate Bank and also failed to submit the detail of his source of income in purchasing the properties from any other source. Shri Asadulla Khan and others have failed to produce any legitimate source of income till date having given several. opportunities for production of source of income. 5. It is not denied by the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h are supplied by the counsel for the bank are re-produced under:- Sl. No. Particulars of the Property & Date of Acquisition Name of the Holder of the Property Value 1 A house constructed by Shri Asadulla Khan at the cost of Rs. 1 crore during the year 2009 at the house site/plot measuring 37ft X 60ft property municipal Khata No. D4/418/2481 at 5th Cross, Gandhinagar, Mandya City, Mandya purchased vide Registration No. 5047 registered at Sub-registrar, Mandya dated 08-08-2006. Smt. Ayesha Najam Wife of Mr. Asadulla Khan Rs. 1,00,00,000/- 2 A factory M/s Faara Industries constructed by Shri Asadull Khan at No. 163, 5th Cross, Gandhinagar, Mandya. The factory plot was allotted by KIADB (The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board) vide Possession Certificate No. IADB/MYS/941/1846/99- 2000 dated 8-11-1999 measuring 53.75 Mts X 150.00 Mtrs. Industrial Property bearing site No. 916, "F" Block, Vivekananda Nagar Layout, Mandya City Smt. Ayesha Najam, wife of Mr. Asadulla Khan Rs. 1,00,00,000/- 3 Agricultural land measuring 12 Guntas at Sy. No. 51/7, and 1 acre at Sy. No. 51/6 at Panduvapura taluk, Kasab Hobli, Doddabyadrahalli, Mandya Distri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en against seven properties which have been listed in para 1 of the impugned order dated 27.07.2012. These properties belong to one Asadulla Khan, his two wives Smt. Nasreen Taj, Ayesha Najam and mother of Smt. Nasreen Taj namely Smt. Zareen Taj. 10. The details with respect to these 7 properties are as follows: (i) House bearing Municipal Khata No. D4/418/2481, 5^th Cross, Gandhinagar, Mandya City, Mandya. The site of this property was purchased by Smt. Ayesha Najam under registered sale deed dated 08.08.2006, prior to construction. Thereafter Smt. Ayesha Najam was granted a loan of Rs. 25 lacs on 25.08.2006 against the security of the site and the proposed construction. In this respect Ayesha Najam created a mortgage with the Syndicate Bank on 25.08.2006 before availing the loan. Thereafter another loan of Rs. 60 lacs was granted to Ayesha Najam on 23.01.2007 after she created/continued the mortgage security in favour of the Syndicate Bank on 23.10.2007. The construction was completed in 2009. The land having been purchased prior to the grant of the loan by the Syndicate Bank, and having been mortgaged with the Bank thereafter the assumption that the subject property ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... situated at S.No. 23, Plot no. 3-B-1 was mortgaged by way of collateral security to the Bank on 06.12.2006 against the loan of Rs. 18 lacs granted to M/s Faara Industries. The other property i.e. Industrial Property bearing site No. 916, "F" Block, Vivekananda Nagar Layout, Mandya City was mortgaged by way of collateral security with the Syndicate Bank by M/s Faara Industries on 21.09.2007 against the loan of Rs. 32 lacs mentioned above. Both the properties were acquired by Ms. Ayesa Nazam in 1999 and 2003 having been acquired prior to the grant of the loan by the Syndicate Bank, and having been mortgaged to the Bank thereafter the assumption that the properties are from the proceeds of a crime is misconceived and wrong. Both the above loan accounts were rendered NPAs on 30.06.2009. Therefore, the Authorised Officer of the Bank in exercise in its rights under the Securitisation Act issued demand notice dated 05.08.2009 under S. 13 (2) thereof demanding the amount due. Thereafter, the Authorised Officer of the Bank issued possession notice dated 12.03.2010 in respect of both the industrial properties compositely mentioned as item no. 8(ii) above. The borrowers M/s Faara In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Kasaba Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk Mandya and portion of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 51/2, at Pandavapura Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, Dodda Byadarahalli Village, Mandya District were acquired by Nasreen Taj on 10.01.2008/22.01.2008. Mrs. Nasreen Taj availed a farm development loan of Rs. 40 lacs on 23.06.2008 and another farm loan Rs. 15 lacs on 23.06.2008. Both the above loans were granted by the Syndicate Bank against the mortgage of the properties described as item no. 8(iv) above. Both the properties were acquired by Ms. Nasreen Taj in January 2008 having been acquired prior to the grant of the loan on 23.06.2008 by the Syndicate Bank, and having been mortgaged with the Bank thereafter the assumption that the properties are from the proceeds of a crime is misconceived and wrong. Agricultural land Survey No. 51/8, Dodda Byadarshalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk Mandya District was acquired by Nasreen Taj on 10.01.2008/22.01.2008. Mrs. Nasreen Taj availed a farm development loan of Rs. 40 lacs on 23.06.2008 and another farm loan Rs. 15 lacs on 23.06.2008. Both the above loans were granted by the Syndicate Bank against the mortgage of the property described a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has filed its objections opposing the writ petition and also application to vacate stay on 04.01.2014. The Hon"ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore adjourned the Writ Petition to 17.01.2014 for considering the objection and application for vacate the stay, while recording the objection filed by the Bank. 14. It is stated on behalf of Syndicate Bank that the impugned order shows that the Adjudicating Authority has come to a prima face conclusion that all the above properties are proceeds of money laundering subject to action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The authority appears to have proceeded on the basis that the CBI has registered a case of criminal conspiracy and under the Prevention of Corruption Act against two Bank officials of Syndicate Bank and Asadulla Khan and his family members alleging that the Bank Officials have conspired with Asadulla Khan and others in the matter of disbursal of various loans from the Syndicate Bank, in excess of their powers and in violation of the procedures, resulting in a loss to the Syndicate Bank. It is also alleged that the properties offered as collateral security against the land have not been found sufficient. On these....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as under:- "7. Coming to the second question, there is no doubt that the 1985 Act is a special Act. Section 32(1) of the said Act reads as follows: "32. Effect of the Act on other laws.-(1) The provisions of this Act and of any rules or schemes made there under shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law except the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 973) and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (33 of 1976) for the time being in force or in the Memorandum or Articles of Association of an industrial company or in any other instrument having effect by virtue of any /law other than this Act." 8. The effect of this provision is that the said Act will have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law except to the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. A similar non obstante provision is contained in Section 13 of the Special Court Act which reads as follows: "13. Act to have overriding effect.-The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3 of the 1992 Act, all properly of notified persons is to stand attached. Under Section 3(4), it is only the Special Court which can give directions to the Custodian in respect of property of the notified party. Similarly, under Section 11(1), the Special Court can give directions regarding property of a notified party. Under Section 11(2), the Special Court is to distribute the assets of the notified party in the manner set out thereunder. Monies payable to the notified parties are assets of the notified party and are, therefore, assets which stand attached. These are assets which have to be collected by the Special Court for the purposes of distribution under Section 11(2). The distribution can only take place provided the assets are first collected. The whole aim of these provisions is to ensure that monies which are siphoned off from hanks and financial institutions into private pockets are returned to the banks and financial institutions. The time and manner of distribution is to be decided by the Special Court only. Under Section 22 of the 1985 Act, recovery proceedings can only be with the consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction or the appellate aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not excluded. It is clear that in the instant case there was no intention of the legislature to permit the 1985 Act to apply, notwithstanding the fact that proceedings in respect of a company may be going on before the BIFR. The 1992 Act is to have an overriding effect notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in another Act." The similar view was taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of Bhoruka Steel Ltd. Vs. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. The judgment rendered on 09.02.2016 reported in 1997 (89) company cases 547 (BOM) para 15 of the said judgment read as under: 15. To be noted that in both the judgments, relied upon by counsel, the Supreme Court has held that generally where there are two special statues, which contain non-obstante clauses, the later statute must prevail. This is because at the time of enactment of the later statute, the Legislature was aware of the earlier legislation and its non-obstante clause. If the Legislature still confers the later enactment with a non- obstante clause it means that the Legislature wanted that enactment to prevail. If the Legislature does not want the later enactment to prevail then it could and would provide in the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding in respect of secured assets of the borrower, priority to secured creditors in payment of debt shall be subject to the provisions of that Code." "3 There is, thus, no doubt that the rights of a secured creditor to realize secured debts due and payable by sale of assets over which security interest is created, would have priority over all debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government, State Government or Local Authority. This section introduced in the Central Act is with "notwithstanding" clause and has come into force from 01.09.2016" "4 The law having now come into force, naturally it would govern the rights of the parties in respect of even a lis pending." "5 The aforesaid would, thus, answer question (a) in favour of the financial institution, which is a secured creditor having the benefit of the mortgaged property." 38. In another Madras High Court judgment in the case of "Dr. V. M. Ganesan vs. The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement" has explained the grievances faced by the financial institutions while holding that "For instance, if LIC Housing Finance Limited, which has advanced money to the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid therefor, the adjudicating authority must carefully consider the material and evidence on record (including the Reply furnished by a noticee in response to a notice issue under Section 8(1) and the material or evidence furnished along therewith to establish his earnings, assets or means to justify the bona fides in the acquisition of the property); and if satisfied as to the bona fide acquisition of the property, relieve such property from provisional attachment by declining to pass an order of confirmation of the provisional attachment; either in respect of the whole or such part of the property provisionally attached in respect whereof bona fide acquisition by a person is established, at the stage of the section 8(2) process..." 41. The Supreme Court in (2010)8 Supreme Court Cases 110 (Before G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ) in the case of United Bank of India V/s. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. In paras no. 6, 55 & 56 has held as under:- 6. To put it differently, the DRT Act has not only brought into existence special procedural mechanism for speedy recovery of dues of banks and financial institutions, but also made provision for ensuring that defaulting borrowers are not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tition is maintainable as the same has been filed also on additional grounds and circumstances. No useful purpose would be served if such oppressive trial may continue for many more years. Thus, ends of justice are served by quashing such a proceeding, as the parties cannot be allowed to go through the rigmarole of criminal prosecution for long numbers of years in a matter, it is doubtful in the mind of the Court in whose favour it would be decided." "71. In view of above mentioned reasons, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners, arising out of R.C. No. 4A/94/SIU(X) dated 23rd May, 1994, titled "CBI vs. N. Bhojraj Shetty & Ors.', being C.C. No.65/11, pending in the Court of Spl. Judge (CBI), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi." The said decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 48. This Tribunal in the case of IPRS in appeal no. FPA-PMLA- 1302/MUM/2016 decided on 22.06.2017 had dealt with the similar issue as to whether the innocent party whose immovable properties are attached by the ED can approach the Adjudicating Authority for release of the same in para no. 55 to 60 the same read as under:- "55. Whether innocent party who....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 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 money-laundering, section 58 B or sub-section (2 A) of section 60 by the Adjudicating Authority (4) Where the provisional order of attach" 56. There are judicial pronouncements whereby it has been laid down that the innocent parties can approach the Adjudicating Authority for release of property by showing their bonafides in their dealings with the property. In the case of Sushil Kumar Katiyar (Appellants) Vs UOI and Ors. (Respondents) MANU/UP/0777/2016 decided on 10.05.2016 by Allahabad High Court, it has been observed by the Ld. Single Judge after noticing the judgment of Karnataka High Court that the element of knowingly or mens rea have been provided under the Act so that the aspect of implicating any innocent person can be ruled out. Relevant para 26 of judgment is reproduced below:- "26. Thus, upon consideration of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, it is clear that the amendment incorporated in the Money Laundering Act was not held unconstitutional and ultra virus, but it was observed by the Karnataka....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... money laundering or not is a pre-condition prior to confirming or attachment by Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, at that time, if the plea is raised that the party whose property is attached is innocent or is without knowledge of any such transaction with respect to money laundering, then the Tribunal can consider the said plea and proceed to release the said property out of the properties by holding that the said property is not involved in money laundering. 58. For the purposes of determining whether the property is involved in money laundering, the Court may consider the ingredients of Section 3 which define offence of money laundering. The aspect of knowledge or involvement has been discussed by Ld. Single Judge of Gujarat High Court in the case of Jafar Mohammed Hasanfatta and Ors (Appellants) Vs Deputy Director and Ors. (Respondents) MANU/GJ/0219/2017 wherein Ld Single Judge has observed as under:- "37. A holistic reading of this definition of 'proceeds of crime' and the penal provision under Section 3 of PMLA, which uses conjunctive 'and', makes it luminous that any persons concerned in any process or activity connected with such "proceeds of crime" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of mind. Likewise "knowledge" will be slightly on a higher plane than "reason to believe". A person can be supposed to know where there is a direct appeal to his senses and a person is presumed to have a reason to believe if he has sufficient cause to believe the same." The same test therefore applies in the instant case where there is absolutely no material or circumstantial evidence whatsoever, oral or documentary, to show that any of the petitioners, 'Knowingly', assisted or was a party to, any offence. C. Actually involved: Actually involved would mean actually involved into any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and thus scheduled offence, including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use. There is absolutely no material or circumstantial evidence whatsoever, oral or documentary, to substantiate any such allegation qua the petitioners, D. Neither any of the petitioners is arraigned as accused in the 'Scheduled Offences' punishable under Indian Penal Code for direct or indirect involvement, abetment, conspiracy or common intention, nor is any such case made out even on prima facie basis against any of them." 39. The s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r more interconnected transactions and one or more such transactions is or are proved to be involved in money-laundering, then for the purposes of adjudication or confiscation (under section 8 or for the trial of the money-laundering offence, it shall unless otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court), be presumed that the remaining transactions form part of such inter-connected transaction. 24. Burden of proof In any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime under this Act, (a) in the case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under Section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money- laundering; and (b) in the case of any other person the Authority or Court, may presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering. 21. In the present case, one G. Srinivasan is accused of having played fraud and obtained a loan of Rs. 15,00,00,000/- by producing bogus and fabricated documents. From and out of the said amount, the property in question was purchased by him in the names of his Benamies. One Ayyappan was appointed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion is proceeds of crime. The respondent failed to prove any nexus or link of Appellants with G. Srinivasanand his benamies. Once a person proves that his purchase is genuine and the property in his hand is untainted property, the only course open to the respondent is to attach sale proceeds in the hands of vendor of the appellants and not the property in the hands of genuine legitimate bona fide purchaser without knowledge. 24. Before the Adjudicating Authority it was admitted by complainant that appellants had no knowledge that properties in the hands of their vendor was proceeds of crime. It was also not disputed by complainant that the appellants did not have financial capacity to buy properties. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 24 of order of Adjudicating Authority is extracted herein for better appreciation. "21. The CBIBS & FC (BLR) has filed a charge sheet in the court of Spl. Judge for CBI cases Coimbatore, against Sh. Arivarasu, Sh. R. Manoharan, Sh. R. Selvakumar, Sh. G. Srinivasan, Sh. K. Martha Muthu, Sh. V. InduNesan, Sh. K. Vignesh, Sh. A. Sainthil Kumar, Sh. M. Ram Krishnan, for the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with 420, 467, 471 IPC and section 13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al attachment was sought to be continued only based on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Radha Mohan Lakhotia's case. 25. A reading of paragraphs 21 to 24 clearly reveals that both the Adjudicating Authority as well as Appellate Authority failed to properly appreciate the facts and findings in Radha Mohan lakhotia's case. In that case, the Department had placed substantial and acceptable facts to prove that the property in the hands of third party was proceeds of crime. It is pertinent to note that in Mr. Radha Mohan Lokatia's case, Department had proved the nexus and link between the person possessing the property and person accused of having committed an offence. All the persons involved in that case were close relatives. 26. In the present case, the respondent failed to prove that the appellants did not have sufficient financial capacity to buy the property or that the money paid by them as sale consideration was not legitimate money derived by agricultural activities. No material was produced to show that the appellants are close relatives of person, who involved in criminal activities and the person, who sent monies to purchase the property did not possess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contract. 18. The impugned confirmation order purports to consider the entire case in one paragraph of the order. After narrating the facts, in para 16 of the order the Adjudicating Authority (AA) simply records that the material on record is sufficient to conclude that properties attached vide provisional attachment order have been acquired out of the proceeds of crime by the appellants. The impugned order does not disclose any reasoning. There is no reasoning to show as to how the attached properties are the proceeds of crime. The impugned order suffers from a fundamental error. There is no understanding by the Adjudicating Authority of the contents of the statute, much less its application to the facts of the case. 19. In view of the facts as mentioned above it cannot be said that the loan proceeds and investment made from the loan proceeds are the "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(u) of the Act' Is the property in question derived by the borrower as a result of any criminal activity' Is the contract of loan between bank and borrower a criminal activity' The bank is a bona fide party who is victim and at the time of sanctioning loan, the bank was not aware about the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of any complaint etc. If the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe that any person committed any offence under S. 3, or is in possession of proceeds of crime, he may serve a notice of not less than thirty days on such person calling upon him to indicate the sources of his income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached under sub-section (1) of Section 5, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show 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. 24. For determining what property can be confiscated under the Act, Sections 2(u), 3, 5(1) and 8 have to be read together. Section 2(u) defines proceeds of crime to mean any property derived or obtained by any person as a result of "criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence". This means that there must be a connection between the property in question and the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. S.3 defines the offence of money laundering. Perusal of S.3 indicates that only a person who is knowingly a party....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk. The plea raised by the respondent no. 1 is without any force. Even if the case of the appellants are examined the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 29. In the present cases, it is clear that in order to treat the loan proceeds obtained by the borrower from the Syndicate Bank as the proceeds of crime, as done by the ED and the Adjudicating Authority is not correct. The said money is not illicit or tainted money, nor is the Bank a party to the criminal conspiracy hatched between the manager of the Bank and the borrower. The Bank is an innocent third party who is to be treated as a victim of the crime, if at all. The money received by the appellants were pure and untainted. It was a public money. It is wholly immaterial if one of the employee is mixed up with the appellant and helped them in order to obtain the loan by virtue of mis-presentation because the fact of the matter is that the money has gone to the appellants from the pocket of the bank and it was public money. The same cannot blocked till the trial in the prosecution complaint before the Special Court is over as it may take number of years. The said proceedings are to be continued even otherwise. 30. The ....