TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1017
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under section 120B r/w 420 & 471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The ECIR was recorded by the respondents finding a predicate offence and an offence of money laundering and finding proceeds of crime in the hands of the appellant, a flat belonging to him has been attached. 3. M/s Mahavir Impex Private Limited availed a loan of Rs. 1 crore from SBI which was subsequently enhanced to 10.35 crores till January 2011. The two properties in the name of Mr. Subal Halder were mortgaged as collateral security for the loan amount. So far the appellant Md. Siraj Seikh is concerned, he was empaneled lawyer of the SBI for the verification and valuation of the two land properties. It was revealed that both the "Title Investigation Reports and Valuation Reports" submitted by Md. Siraj Seikh along with one D.K. Bandhopadhyay were false. None of the two landed properties morgaged were in the name of Mr. Subal Halder. 4. It was that Sh. Kaushik Kumar Nath, Director of M/s Mahavir Impex Private Limited submitted false declaration of sales showing growth in the business of the Company for availing initial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eds of crime. The respondent relied on the statement of the appellant recorded under section 50 of the Act of 2002 but solely on the basis of the statement, the case could not have been framed against the appellant. It was also in reference to the statement of other witnesses recorded under section 50 of the Act of 2002. The respondents were required to bring independent evidence to prove that purchase of the flat by the appellant was out of the proceeds of crime. The Adjudicating Authority was expected not to confirm the provisional attachment order but it committed a grave irregularity while passing the impugned order to confirm the provisional attachment order. 10. It was further submitted that appellant could have disclosed the source to acquire the flat but he was not called upon or asked to disclose the sources. The appellant can bring the evidence to show his legitimate source to purchase the flat. It could not be brought on record when not asked by the respondents and in view of the aforesaid also, the impugned order should not be sustain only for the reason that appellant failed to disclose the source for purchase of the property. 11. The learned counsel for the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... otherwise disclosed that in August 2021, Manisha Nath and Kaushik Nath requested him to give a loan of Rs. One lakh for their personal work as they were having very good relation. Thus it was extended on assurance of refund of the amount at the earliest. Thereafter, a further loan of Rs. 2 lakhs was extended by Ms. Meghna Thapar, sister of Mrs. Manisha Nath with the proper receipt and assured for refund of the amount by December 2021. Manisha Nath was also asking him to pay the stamp duty of the registration charges and necessary expenses for the gift deed in favour of Manisha Nath and for that they asked to give a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- with assurance for the payment at the earliest. He transferred the amount aforesaid and ultimately purchased the flat for a sum of Rs. 24 lakh using the amount transferred back by Manisha Nath to repay the loan excluded by the appellant. For that Rs. 2,50,000/- was transferred through RTGS from time to time and accordingly agreement to sale was entered. Prior to that, sale of flat to Nisha Kulkarni failed as she was unable to purchase the flat in absence of loan by the bank and accordingly the appellant paid cash amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- on 22.01.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... successful in generation of the proceeds of crime by obtaining the loan in fraudulent manner and thereafter laundering it. The benefit was passed on to the appellant also and accordingly the respondents have taken it to be the proceeds of crime. 19. At this stage, appellant made a reference of the circle rate of the property at the time when it was purchased in the year 2022. We do not find any document to this effect and otherwise document available on record shows registration of the flat in the year 2010 for a consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs. If the Registrar has registered the document on a lower value, it would not endorse or hold the transaction to be genuine in the background of the case. 20. The learned counsel submitted that he was not called upon to disclose the source to purchase the flat. The argument aforesaid was made in ignorance of section 8(1) of the Act which quoted hereunder:- Section 8(1) Adjudication. On receipt of a complaint under sub-section (5) of section 5, or applications made under sub-section (4) of section 17 or under sub-section (10) of section 18, if the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe that any person has committed....