2019 (8) TMI 1774

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....SUNDRESH] Challenge in both the appeals is to the order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the appellate tribunal under The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. The appellate tribunal by the impugned order under appeal set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority in Original Complaint No.211 of 2013. The appellate tribunal accordingly held that as against the attachment order for Rs. 4,60,94.825.97 only the attachment to the extent of Rs. 3,63,00.825.97 is liable to be released. 3. We do not propose to go into the factual details except by recording the findings rendered by the appellate tribunal which reads as under:- "As regard the overall amount of Rs. 19,26,60,992/- involved in the instant case, the observation of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ay clarify here that we are taking the balance approach in the appeal in view of material available at the time of reserving the order. We are not expressed any opinion on merits of the criminal case as the matter is also pending before the Special Court who would decide the same as per merits of the case and without any influence of the order passed in the above mentioned appeal. The appellants in both the appeals are entitled to withdraw the remaining entire amount except Rs. 97,94,000/-." 4. The sum and substance of the case of the appellant is that the proceeds of the crime involving one Mr.Sukash Chandra Shekar is available in the account of the respondents. The transaction was to the effect that the respondents who were doing busines....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oceeds of the crime was available with the other accounts belonging to the third parties. Insofar as the respondents concerned, it was only for a sum of Rs. 46,69,000/- and even assuming one other transaction could be added by additional amount of Rs. 51,25,000/-, the appellate tribunal was right in upholding the order of the adjudicating authority for a sum of Rs. 97,94,000/-. The learned counsel also raised objection to the maintainability of the appeal itself before us. 7. Having heard the submissions of the learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, we are of the view that the submission made with respect to the statement made by Mr.Sukash Chandra Shekar pertains to only a sum of Rs. 46,....