TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 2. First three appeals have been filed by the appellants against impugned order dated 06.06.2013 by Adjudicating Authority made in Original Complaint No. 172 of 2013, confirming the attachments made vide Provisional Attachment Order dated 07.01.2013 (PAO) in ECIR/09/HZO/2011. 3. Fourth Appeal at Serial no. 4 (being no. FPA-PMLA- 1052/HYD/2015) is filed by M/s Ramky Pharma City (India) Ltd. (for short "Ramky) & Others against second attachment Order dated 04.08.2015 confirmed by Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint No. 441 of 2015, confirming the attachment made by Provisional Attachment Order dated 04.08.2015 (PAO) in ECIR/09/HZO/2011. 4. Both the PAOs passed corresponding to CC No. 10 of 2012 before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad (CBI Case). 5. Total attachments of properties effected in both OCs are totalling to Rs. 356.59 Crs i.e. in the name of Jagati Publication and Ramky Group i.e. M/s Ramky Pharma City (India) Ltd. - Properties were attached worth Rs. 101.35 Crs in the 1st attachment order and properties worth Rs. 212.85 Crs in 2nd attachment order as well as the immovable property of Rs. 32.39 Crs. of M/s JNPC Pharma. 6. Before register....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sheets) included in the present case before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Nampally, Hyderabad against Shri Y.S Jagan Mohan Reddy & Others. 10. Out of the above 11 charge sheets, 10 Charge Sheets were filed for quid pro quo arrangements and other one relates to cheating of investors by S/Shri Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy & Vijay Sai Reddy. The charges are not framed so far. 11. CBI filed charge sheet; the following allegations were made against the appellants. A. Jawaharlal Nehru Pharma City (JNPC in short) project was set up by M/s. Ramky Pharma City India Ltd. (RPCIL in short) having an area of 2143 acres of land including both SEZ and non-SEZ area, which was a joint venture between APIIC and Ramky Industries Ltd. (RIL). B. As per Charge Sheet filed by CBI on 07.05.2012 (CC No. 10/2012), the Vice Chairman, Vishakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA in short) has approved the layout of JNPC with Green belt of 50 Mts. Inside the Pharma City and 250 Mts. Outside the Pharma City on 26.11.2007, which is contrary to the approved original master plan dated 30.06.2006 with provision of green belt area of 250 Mts. inside and 250 Mts. outside the Pharma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d into Industrial Plots, out of which, they have sold 9 plots in 70.563 Acres of Land and RPCIL is in possession of remaining plots in the land of 218.371 Acres, which are falling in Green belt area, as under: S.No. Heading SEZ Plots Area Non SEZ Plots Area Total Plots Area 1 Open Lands (Unsold) falling in Green Belt Area 1 4.665 6 73.21 7 77.875 2 Transactions Completed 0 0 9 70.563 9 70.563 3 Transaction NOT completed 7 79.15 8 61.346 15 140.496 TOTAL 8 83.815 23 205.119 31 288.934 F. It was also alleged that Ramky Group has invested Rs. 10 crores in M/s. Jagathi Publications Ltd. against the above said wrongful gain received by them in the form of decreasing the green belt area. Investigation under PMLA 12. On the basis of allegations, it was the case of respondent no. 1 that the RPCIL of Ramky Group, was unduly benefitted by decision taken by Sri. Y.S. Rajsekhara Reddy under the influence of his son Sri Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy in allowing reducing of green belt area inside the Pharma City from 250 Mts. to 50 Mts. RPCIL has been b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lier PAO No. 01/2013, the value of these plots was not included in the computation of Proceeds of Crime in the said PAO. Therefore the said value of Rs. 64.98 Crores, being value of these plots, is considered as proceeds of crime in the present PAO. In addition to the above, the remaining land of 19.07 Acres (out of 77.875 Acres), is available as Plot No. 46 with RPCIL. Thus, the Proceeds of Crime are summarized as; i. Rs. 64.98 Crores related to 58.805 Acres of the above said land. ii. Plot No. 46 admeasuring 19.07 Acres of the remaining land. iii. Rs. 36,31,72,881/- related to the sale proceeds of 9 plots sold {of 70.563 Acres} and iv. 15 Industrial Plots comprising of 140.496 Acres, in which sale transactions are incomplete and are still in the possession of RPCIL. Thus, open land of 16 Plots admeasuring 159.566 Acres {149.496 Acres + 19.07 Acres} available with RPCIL and Rs. 101,29,72,881/- {Rs. 64.98 Crores + Rs. 36,31,72,881/-} are considered as Proceeds of Crime as per the definition of 'Proceeds of Crime' under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, 2002. Identification of Proceeds of Crime:- a. As per the details provided by Sr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and valued at Rs. 22.782 Crores and remaining value of Rs. 7.61 Crores pertaining to Plot No. 83 is already considered as equivalent value of proceeds of crime as discussed above, only properties worth of Rs. 70,90,52,881/- were identified further, from the above, with regard to the proceeds of crime of Rs. 101,29,72,881/- specified in para 13.2 above. It is case of the respondent that the amount collected by the sale of plots in Non-SEZ area and leasing of plots in SEZ area, which are falling under green belt areas, are thus the proceeds of crime, which is generated illegally and acquired as detailed above, by committing offences under Section 120-B and 420 of IPC. Hence the Proceeds of Crime as defined in Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, 2002, in the form of plots/lands valued at Rs. 216,18,48,081/- are considered for attachment. In view of the above, it was found by the respondent that- a. RPCIL has gained 914 Acres of land illegally by reducing the green belt area from 250 Mts. To 50 Mts. inside the Pharma City and further developed 288.384 Acres of such land and divided into plots and sold most of the said plots in Green Belt Area and realized amounts, which are proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ched the following movable and immovable properties. (A) In first O.C.-172/2013, the following properties were confirmed as per impugned order 6.6.2013 Sl. No. Details of the asset/property Owner of the asset/property Amount involved 1 Fixed deposits in the name of M/s Jagati Publications Ltd held in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Hyderabad (branch at Road No. 63, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 33) M/s Jagati Publications Pvt. Ltd. The FDR amount attached is limited to Rs. 10 Cr. Out of the FDRs held by M/s Jagati Publications Ltd. 2. Plot No. 42, 43, 54, 72 in village Thanam, non sez area total 19.71 acres Parwada Mandal Vishakhapatna, Andhra Pradesh M/s Ramky Pharma City (India) Ltd. (RPCIL) Rs. 23.66 Cr. 3. Plot No. 114 in Village Lemarthi, SEZ area total 4.665 acres Parwada Mandal Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh M/s Ramky Pharma City (India) Ltd. (RPCIL) Rs. 8.93 Cr. 4. Sy. No. 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 105, 106 & 107 Area 47.10 Acres vide sale deed 1608/2007 dated 12.01.2007 Lemarthi Village Parwada Mandal, Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh M/s Ramky Pharma City (India) Ltd. (RPCIL) Rs. 1.98 Cr. 5. Commercial hub ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India Ltd., Hyderabad Rs. 35,64,56,320 5 37.379 Acres of land vie OP-01 to 04 & OP-50, 52, 65, 66 is Sy. No's Parts of 26, 27, 03, 01, 02, 202, 80, 81, 83, 87, 74, 82, 86, 48, 52, 54, 56, 77, 44, 47 & 48 in Lemarthi Village M/s Ramky Pharma City India Ltd., Hyderabad Rs. 18,09,14,360 6 23.394 Acres of land vide OP-05 to 18 in Sy. No's 202, Parts of 198, 195, 254, 263, 262, 182, 189, 156, 138, 140, 136 & 137 in Thadi Village M/s Ramky Pharma City India Ltd., Hyderabad Rs. 12,45,49,656 7 11.624 Acres of land vide OP-41 to 44 & OP-64 in Sy. No's Part of 93, Parts of 94, 95 & 105, Parts of 107, 108 & 117 and Part of 137 in E. Bonangi Village M/s Ramky Pharma City India Ltd., Hyderabad Rs. 8,43,90,240 (Attachment to the extent of Rs. 4,71,32,545 only) Total Rs. 216,18,48,081 (restricted to Rs. 212,45,90,386/-) 17. The appellants have denied all allegations by the respondent as well as raised by CBI in its charge-sheet. It is stated by them that no wrong has been committed. The main issues raised by the appellants have not been dealt by the respondent, and CBI in its charge-sheet has ignored the vital facts of the case. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roposal of the Ramky Group was approved and accepted. 18.11.2003 Letter of Intent (LOI) bearing No. APIIC/CE-I/PHARMA CITY/18/2002 was issued selecting the Ramky Group as developer of Pharma City on the basis of the proposal submitted by the Ramky Group. 12.02.2004 Letter from APIIC to VUDA informing that area upto 1km distance around IDA Parwada was to be treated as 'Control Zone', permitting only certain non-polluting activities and no residential activities. 12.03.2004 APIIC entered into a Concession Agreement with Ramky Group pursuant to the LOI for development of the Pharma City. Accordingly, the Pharma City was to be developed as a joint venture between Ramky Group and APIIC. The equity was in the ratio of 89% for Ramky and 11% for APIIC. 11.09.2004 Then CM conducted a review meeting with concerned officials, on wherein the then CM advised VUDA to undertake plantations in the No Development Zone earmarked by VUDA of the required witdh of 500 mts/ 1 Km. 13.04.2005 Letter from GandiBabji, MLA to the then CM objecting to APIIC's proposal of earmarking 1km around Pharma City as 'No Development Zone/ Green Belt' and suggesting that gree....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity. The said decision was contrary to the Concession Agreement and affected valuable rights of Ramky as prior to Meeting dated 20.06.2005, Ramky was not required to maintain any buffer zone around the Pharma City, albeit it was required to maintain a green belt in accordance with the Agreement. 14.08.2006 Minutes of the Meeting with VC VUDA, as per which Ramky was to maintain 50m Buffer Zone inside Pharma City 23.06.2007 VUDA Note File, observing that the change from maintenance of green belt inside Pharma City from 250m to 50m was required to be incorporated in the Master Plan. Also noting that Buffer Zone/Green Belt had not been envisaged in the draft Master Plan notified during January 2004. 03.12.2007 Layout sanction bearing LP No. 73/2007 granted by VUDA in favour of Ramky, detailing the land use pattern and providing that RPCIL was required to maintain Green Belt of 50m inside Pharma City. 07.04.2011 G.O. Rt. No. 437 issued by the Govt. setting up a committee to suggest the extent of buffer zone required and to consider the recommendations made by the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee regarding maintenance of 500 Mts. buffer zone....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces inside the pharma city. This land usage is consistent with the Concession Agreement as well as the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Minister's 2nd meeting which is attended by all the persons concerned and the same was the consent order passed. It is alleged that maintaining 250 Mts of green belt ought to have been maintained is not only contrary to the settled essential condition of a concluded Concession Agreement but is also against basic economic consideration for a transaction. 24. It is submitted that there was no logic in the decision taken in the first meeting which is not attended on behalf of appellant. The order was passed at their back. It is stated that the requirement of leaving 250 Mts of green belt inside pharma city would amount to 973 Acres of land inside pharma city. On the other hand, it was the case of CBI and ED contend that the appellant has gained a 914 Acres of land as only 59 acres of land is left as green belt zone. In reply, it is stated that if 914 Acres of extra land has to be demarcated within the existing 2143.13 Acres of land as green belt area, then the plotted area for commercial use would reduce from 1429 Acres to merely 515 Acres of land i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e property under attachment is not established. (f) The entire proceedings under PMLA are untenable in law as the allegations in the CBI Case are made in relation to allegations prior to 2009. The penal provisions, which are sought to be pressed against the Appellant, were not included in the Schedule to the PMLA during the relevant time and were only included in the Schedule by way of amendment to PMLA vide Act No. 21 of 2009 w.e.f. 01.06.2009. Thus, even the allegations made in the predicate CBI Case, no "scheduled offence" was committed for the purposes of PMLA. Therefore, the Provisional Attachment Order, and confirmation thereof, is vitiated on jurisdictional grounds for lack of power. 27. The main case of the respondent in nutshell is that the reduction of said 250 mts. to 50 mts. by the CM in second meeting amounts to favouring the appellants as the son of CM had accepted the investment of Rs. 10 Crores. The said investment was made at the instance of CM. 28. There is no denial on behalf of either party that the Concession Agreement dated 12.03.2004 singed and entered into by the APIIC and Ramky during the reign of Chief Minister Chandra Babu Naidu. CL. H8 sti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the land use pattern were essential terms of a concluded contract i.e., vide Concession Agreement dt. 12.03.2004. Therefore, no unilateral change of an already concluded contract is permissible, especially a condition of land usage which becomes and integral and essential commercial consideration to a contract. 34. It is stated on behalf of the appellants that ED has taken the guideline value given by the Revenue Department. In other attachment order arising from the same ECIR, the ED has sought to attach properties which are designated as 'value equivalent to the proceeds of crime' at the acquisition value and not the guideline value. 35. It is not denied by the respondent that as per the Concession Agreement, Ramky was not required to maintain any buffer zone around the Pharma City. Ramky was only obligated to maintain a green belt in accordance with the 'Guidelines for Development of Green Belts' published by the CPCB in March 2000. 36. In the PAO and its confirmation order, the argument of Ramky from suffering a loss on account of the decision dated 23.11.2005, was rejected rather it was held that the entire area between 50mts from the inward perimeter upto 250m was ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r reduced to 500mts on the account of opposition from local persons. 43. There are total of 60 investors (including Mr. Nimagadda Prasad and his group companies) had purchased Appellant's shares at Rs. 360 per share with a premium of Rs. 350 per share. The action was taken against 15 investors till the date of first provisional attachment order was passed. The respondent has failed to explain why no action was taken against remaining 45 investors nor any charge-sheet is filed by CBI against them. 44. It is submitted on behalf of appellants that accusing the business investment as quid pro quo without any cogent and clear evidence. It is alleged that the attachments at the hands of Jagati Publications are wholly unnecessary as the Orders of the Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad dated 23.05.2012 made in Cr. LP No. 4523 of 2012 already restrained the alienation of any assets of the company while taking into account that Jagati Publications is a media house employing numerous persons. 45. It is not denied that it was beyond the concession agreement but Ramky undisputedly admitted to maintain restriction of 50 mts inwards is a reduction from 250 mts. It has come on record that in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. APIIC/CE-I/PHARMA CITY/18/2002 dated 18.11.2003 was issued to the Appellant Group. Pursuant to the Letter of intent, the APIIC and the Appellant executed a Concession Agreement dated 12.03.2004. Accordingly, the Pharma City was developed as a joint venture between the Appellant Group and the APIIC. Thereafter, the Pharma City came to be named as "JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PHARMA CITY (JNPC)" 49. Pursuant to the Joint Venture being established, about 102 companies have purchased plots and/or doing business in the Pharma City. Various international and national prestigious companies such as EISAI Pharma from Japan, Pharma Zell, Gmbh from Germany, Hospira from U.S.A. Mylan fro U.S.A. Aptuit Laurus from USA, SNF from France, Minarava from Belgium, Kanoria Chemicals, Vijaysri Organics, Vasudha etc. have set up their industries in the Pharma City. 50. As per the Concession Agreement, the Appellant was not required to maintain any buffer zone around the Pharma City. The appellant was only required to maintain green belt in accordance with the 'Guidelines for Development of Greenbelts' published by CPCB in March 2000 (Please refer Clause H8 of Schedule H of the Concession Agreement), whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey have arisen. It is my duty to clarify those matters. Sir, firstly, we must remember that money-laundering is a very technically-defined offence. It is not the way we understand 'money laundering' in a colloquial sense. It is a technically-defined offence. It postulates that there must be a predicate offence and it is dealing with the proceeds of a crime. That is the offence of money-laundering. It is more than simply converting black-money into white or white money into black. That is an offence under the Income Tax Act. There must be a crime as defined in the Schedule. As a result of that crime, there must be certain proceeds - It could be cash; it could be property. And anyone who directly or indirectly indulges or assists or is involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projects it as untainted property is guilty of offence of money-laundering. So, it is a very technical offence. The predicate offences are all listed in the Schedule. Unless there is a predicate offence, there cannot be an offence of money-laundering. Initially the thinking was unless a person was convicted of the predicate offence, you cannot convict him of money laundering. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt shall regard that the fact is proved unless it is disputed. So, we maintain the rigour of the section. But, we use the well-accepted phrase 'shall presume'. In the case of any other person, we borrow the phrase 'may presume'; the court may presume, may not presume and evidence to the contrary can be let off. So, we have now made a distinction between a person charged with the main offence of money-laundering, and persons who are charged with other offences because, as you know, under sections 43 and 44, all other offences shall be tried by the same court which tries offence of money laundering. Then, the question was asked that by using the word 'charged', whether we are shifting the burden of proof even at the stage of the report under 173(8). The answer is: obviously, no. Under 173(8), what is filed is a report after investigation. The word 'charge' occurs for the first time in the Criminal Procedure Code under section 211, "Every charge under this Code shall State the offence with which the accused is charged.". So, we borrow the language of 211 and say, replace the word 'accused' and say 'when a person is charged with an offence, that is when the court frames a ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....though dishonest, would escape the rigour of the provision enacted in that sub-section. Parliament therefore enacted sub-section (2) with a view to extending the coverage of the provision in sub-section (I) to other cases of under statement of consideration. This becomes clear if we have regard to the object and purpose of the introduction of sub-section (2) as appearing from travaux preparatoire relating to the enactment of that provision. It is a sound rule of construction of a statute firmly established in England as far back as 1584 when Heydon's case(1) was decided that"... for the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general-four things are to be discerned and considered: (1) What was the common law before the making of the Act, (2) What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide, (3) What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth, and (4) The true reason of the remedy, and then the office of all the Judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy". In in re Mayfair Property Company (2) Lindley. M.R. in 1898 found the rule "as necessary no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be remedied by the legislation and the object and purpose for which the legislation is enacted. This is in accord with the recent trend in juristic thought not only in Western countries but also in India that interpretation of a statute being an exercise in the ascertainment of meaning, everything which is logically relevant should be admissible. In fact there are at least three decisions of this Court, one in Loka Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income-Tax(1) the other in Indian Chamber of Commerce v. Commissioner of Income-tax(2) and the third in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association(3) where the speech made by the Finance Minister while introducing the exclusionary clause in section 2 clause (15) of the Act was relied upon by the Court for the purpose of ascertaining what was the reason for introducing that clause. The speech made by the Finance Minister while moving the amendment introducing sub- section (2) clearly states what were the circumstances in which sub-section (2) came to be passed, what was the mischief for which section 52 as it then stood did not provide and which was sought to be remedied by the enactment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are not framed, the respondent has to discharge the initial burden that the party is involved in the money laundering by producing the materials, thereafter, the burden would be shifted to the party concerned. No doubt, under the old provision (amended provision) of Section-24 of the Act, the burden of proof was upon the party against whom the allegations are made from the initial stage itself, irrespective of fact whether the charges are framed or not. Therefore, the decisions rendered are correct as those were passed at that time when old (unamended provision) - Section 24 was applicable. 60. Therefore, unless the charges are framed with the offence of money laundering under Section-3 of the Act, the burden of proof shall remain lies with the respondent to prove that the concerned parties are involved with the offence of money laundering in order to invoke Section-3 of the Act if the properties were acquired from the proceed of crime. Nothing has come on record to show that the money which was paid in order to purchase the land by Ramky was tainted money. 61. In connected appeals filed by third parties, it was established by way of evidence that the value of the shares wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chedule to the PMLA during the relevant time and were only included in the Schedule by way of amendment to PMLA vide Act No. 21 of 2009 w.e.f. 01.06.2009. Thus, even according to the allegations made in the predicate CBI Case, no "scheduled offence" was committed for the purposes of PMLA. It is argued on behalf of appellants that this is also one of the grounds to set aside the Provisional Attachment Order, and confirmation thereof as argued. 67. On the issue of the question of retrospectively operation, the Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edition, at page 215, under the heading-Retrospective Operation of Statutes, writes. "UPON the presumption that the legislature does not intend what is unjust rests the leaning against giving certain statutes a retrospective operation. They are construed as operating only in cases or on facts which come into existence after the statutes were passed unless a retrospective effect is clearly intended. It is a fundamental rule of English law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made to have retrospective operation. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only. In Principles of Statutory Interpretation (7th Edn., 1999) by Justice G.P. Singh, the statement of Lord Blanesburg in Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving [1905 AC 369 : (1904-07) All ER Rep Ext 1620 (PC)] and the observations of Lopes, L.J. in Pulborough Parish School Board Election, In re, Bourke v. Nutt [(1894) 1 QB 725 : (1891-94) All ER Rep 831 (CA)] have been noted as follows: (QB p. 737) "In the words of Lord Blanesburg, 'provisions which touch a right in existence at the passing of the statute are not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment'. 'Every statute, it has been said', observed Lopes, L.J., 'which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions already past, must be presumed to be intended not to have a retrospective effect'." 154. Where an issue arises before the court whether a statute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if necessary even by modification of the language used." d) K. C. Arora and Another Versus State of Haryana, 1984 (3) SCC 281, para 15 [3 Judge Bench of SC], held that: "15. It may be pointed out at the very outset that the Parliament as also the State Legislature have plenary powers to legislate within the field of legislation committed to them and subject to certain constitutional restrictions they can legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively. It is, however, a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect..............................................." 71. In M/s Punjab Iron Supply Co., Chandigarh V. Central Government, MANU/SC/0296/1983: [1984]1SCR428, the exemption was granted by the Home Department Notification dated 31.01.1973, as modified notifications dated 24.09.1974 to those buildings which were given sewerage connection or electric connection or which are occupied, as the case may be, on or after January 31, 1973. It was held that the benefit of the notification cannot be extended to the buildings which were given the se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt, retrospectivity should not be considered to have arisen. 72. In the recent judgement passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh on 31.12.2018 in the case of 'Satyam Computer Services Limited vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India and Ors.' where the issue of retrospective effect has been dealt with. In paras 67 to 72, the same are read as under:- "67. The fourth and last ground of attach to the impugned order of attachment is that Section 8(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, as amended in the year 2013 cannot be applied retrospectively and that therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 68. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to have a look at Section 8(5) of the PMLA, 2002, as it was before and as it is after amendment: Section 8(5) before amendment Section 8(5) after amendment w.e.f. 15.02.2013 (5) Where on conclusion of a trial for any scheduled offence, the persons concerned is acquitted, the attachment of the property of the retention of the seized property or record under sub-section (3) and net ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evidence or which is declaratory in nature has to be construed as retrospective, unless there is clear indication to the contrary. 71. The PMLA is not a statute dealing merely with matters of procedure or evidence or which is declaratory in nature. It is a statute which affects substantive rights of parties. Therefore, by the test indicated in K.S. Parpoornan, it cannot have retrospective effect. 72. In fact, the PMLA ,2002 underwent several amendments from the year 2005 onwards. Even the expression "proceeds of crime" defined in Section 2(1)(u) underwent an amendment by Act 2 of 2013 and later by Finance Act, 2016. Today, the definition includes any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Therefore, even the property in the hands of third parties can be attached and confiscated, if it is shown that they represent proceeds of crime. Hence, by its very nature, the provisions of the Act cannot have retrospective effect. 73. The argument of the Ramky on the issue of retrospective has some force as the case of respondent is with regard to agreement which was executed in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edure. One of the main objects and reasons of this Act is to confiscate of proceeds of crime apart to the criminal liability if the accused has committed under the provisions of this Act and schedule offense. Till the time final order is passed by the Special Courts, if a valid case is made by ED, the proceeds of crime must be preserved so that after final order it should be confiscated for the benefit of State. 77. Before this Act came into existence, it has been noticed that accused person used to dispose of proceeds of crime till the time final orders are passed under the Schedule Offense. Therefore, in order to secure the proceeds of crime, some directions are required to be passed in appropriate appeals to preserve the proceeds of crime. 78. In case Order XXXVIII of code of Civil Procedural are read meaning manner it appears that the objects and reasons of PMLA to preserve the proceeds of crime to somehow similar. Order XXXVIIII provides the remedy of arrest and attachment before judgment. 79. Sub-section (1) of the said provision mandates that at any stage if the defendant has absconded or left the local limit of the jurisdiction or is about to abscond or leave and h....