TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 883
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... alleged to have been involved in many criminal activities including attempt to murder, extortion ("dada-bati"), tender fixing, offences under Arms Act, etc. for which five FIRs lodged against him and others by Chauliaganj Police Station, Cuttack, Odisha since the year 1982 and was lodged in Jail under Judicial custody. In the present case He was again arrested in March 2016 for the extortion, tender fixing and offences under Arms Act, under 1959 was sent to Judicial custody for 7 months till 20th October, 2016 on the basis of FIR lodged by Sh. Saroj Dehury at the aforesaid police station. 4. The O.C. no. 733/2017 was filed against 10 defendants including the present appellant who has been arrayed as defendant no. 4 as these defendants alleged to have committed offences u/s 120B, 302, 307, 364(A), 384, 386, 387, 411, 419, 420, 471, 489(B) of IPC and sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959. As these offences are scheduled offences under paragraphs 1 & 5 respectively of schedule under PMLA and that as prima facie case of offence of money laundering under section 3 of PML Act, 2002 and punishable under section 4 of PMLA, 2002, so the Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR/BBSZO/02/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rge sheet in PS case no. 27/2016 that Rs. 12,44,000/- is found mentioned. 8. There is no material placed before us by the appellant that the Plain Paper FIR registered vide FIR no. 27/2016 against the appellant and others in which charge sheet bearing no. 83 dated 17.06.2016 interalia involving the cash of Rs. 12,44,000/- is released by the Trial Court. Nor there is any submission made by the appellant that they have filed any application before the trial court to release that amount on the ground that the same is neither seized nor involved in PS case no. 27/2016. 9. The appellant has filed a copy of Final Form under Section 173 CrP.C. filed before SDJM, Cuttack in the matter of FIR No. 27 dated 03.02.2016 for commission of offences under Section 387/120(B)/34IPC read with Section 25(1-B)(a)/25(1-AA)/27 of Arms Act. In the said Final Form, the present appellant has been cited as Accused No.3. The brief facts stated therein are that during search of the house of the appellant, while investigating Chauliaganj PS Case No.12 dated 18.01.2016, on 01.02.2016 cash of Rs. 12,44,000/- have been seized and that he failed to give an satisfactory account regarding the possession of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 12,44,000/-. (C). We have considered the entire material made available to us. The respondent has registered ECIR/02/BBSZO/2016 dated 03.06.2016 on the basis of PS Case no. 27/16 dated 03.02.2016 registered against the appellant & others for commission of offences under section 387/120B/34 IPC r/w 25(1-AA)/ 27 of Arms Act. (D). On perusal of the papers it appears that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 12,44,000/- has been seized on 01.02.2016 at 04:35 AM during course of investigation of Chauliaganj PS Case no. 12 dated 30.01.2014 from the house of the appellant and the appellant could not show/produce any document regarding procurement of such huge amount at his house. (E). On 03.02.2016 a Plain Paper FIR was drawn by Shri Ajay Kumar Das, IIC, Chauliaganj Police Station wherein the seizure of the aforesaid amount has been reflected. The said Plain Paper FIR has been registered as PS Case no. 27/16 dated 03.02.2016 under the aforesaid sections and Charge Sheet has been filed against several persons including the appellant who is cited as accused no. 3. In the said Charge Sheet, the aforesaid amount has been shown as seized from the house of the appellant on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (vii) Paresha G. Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, 2016 (1) Guj LH 329. (viii) SheoNath Singh Vs. Appellate Assistant CIT (1972) 3 SCC 234. (I). We have gone through the said judgments cited by the appellant, the PAO, the OC and the impugned order. The said judgments have explained the expression „reason to believe‟ in the context of the respective Acts and we are respectfully agree with the views expressed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and High Court in the aforesaid judgments. But the same are not applicable in the present case in view of the fact that the respondent has sufficiently explained the reason to believe that why the said amount is required to be attached under Section 5(1) of PMLA, 2002. It is not denied by the appellant that the aforesaid amount has been seized from the possession of the Appellant, secondly, the said amount is reflected in the FIR No. 27/2016 and the charge sheet dated 17.06.2016, thirdly, there is no material placed by the appellant that the said criminal case is disposed of in his favour. (J). The learned Adjudicating Authority has also explained the reasons to believe, in confirming the PAO, fro....