TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1080
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 17(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short "the Act of 2002"). The application under Section 17(4) of the Act of 2002 was thereupon sent to the Adjudicating Authority and received by it on 21.04.2022. So far as present appeal is concerned, it would address the issues raised by the Counsel for the appellant and contested by the respondent leaving other respondents before the Adjudicating Authority and not before this Tribunal in these appeals. Brief facts of the case: 2. It is a case where an FIR was registered on 17.05.2018 by Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Jammu for offence under Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat, 2006 (pari-materia to Section 13(2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir which was included one Shri Rajeev Ranjan, IAS, the then DC Kupwara, Shri Itrat Hussain Rafiqui, JKAS, the then DC Kupwara, Shri Ravinder Bhatt, JKAS, the then ADC Kupwara and many others. The name of the appellant, Shri Devi Dayal Khajuria was also revealed in reference to Khajuria Arms and Ammunition. The appellant was found involved in the illegal work of getting the arms license for ex-army personnel. He was also involved in the trade of arms. Accordingly, in the search operation, a sum of Rs. 65,00,000/- was recovered of which no source could be disclosed by the appellant and therefore the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the seizure of the cash and allowed to retain it till conclusion of the Trial. Arguments of the Counsel for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he FIR was lodged for an offence under Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act but the allegation for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is not made out against the appellant. The appellant was involved in trade of arms which cannot be considered to be an offence and accordingly without there being a predicate offence, the respondent recorded the ECIR and caused Provisional Attachment Order. It is, further, submitted that the Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat, 2006 and Ranbir Penal Code are not reflected in the schedule appended to the Act of 2002. It may be that the provisions framed thereto are pari-materia to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 but both the statutes were not applicable in the State of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....though an opportunity for it was given, rather, the Tribunal called upon to the Counsel for the appellant to make any other legal and factual issue, available to them. The Counsel for the appellant restricted his arguments to what has been referred above. Arguments of the Counsel for the respondent: 11. Ld. Counsel for the respondent contested the appeal on all the grounds raised by the appellant. It is on the factual and legal issues. Elaborate arguments were made to defend the case and would be referred at the time of recording our findings in reference to the arguments made by the Counsel for the appellant for the sake of brevity. Findings of the Tribunal: 12. The fact narrated in the opening paras discloses about the registration of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. The ledger and the balance-sheet remain with the appellant and can be prepared any time whereas the bank statement is an independent document and could have fortified the case of the appellant but no bank statement has been enclosed along with the appeal to justify Rs. 65 lakhs in the hands of the appellant at the time of search. It is necessary to add that even the Income Tax Return does not justify or fortify existence of Rs. 65 lakhs with the appellant and therefore appellant has failed to disclose the true source of Rs.65 lakhs in his hands. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly allowed retention of the said amount till conclusion of the trial. 16. We further find that the appellant has taken a plea about savings in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd paid the money which was passed on even to the officials involved therein. 19. Coming to the issue of non-supply of reasons to believe and relied upon documents. The facts referred in the impugned order show that the application under Section 17(4) of the Act 2002 was served on 24.04.2020. The relied upon documents were given along with show-cause notice with reasons to believe under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002. It was served on 25.05.2022. The argument about non-supply of reasons to believe and the relied upon documents has been made contrary to the record and when it was received by the appellant and has reflected in the order. It would be relevant to mention here that show-cause notice dated 13.05.2022 makes a mention about the d....