TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1080
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting 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) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988). It was also under Section 120-B of Ranbir Penal Code (pari-materia to Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860). It was alleged that various agencies of the State were indulged in commission of crime during the period 2012 to 2016. The authorities of District were found involved in the criminal practices in issuance of Arms license in lieu of monetary considerations. It is with the support of the many others and more specifically who are dealing with and involved in sale of arms. 3. In addition to the FIR lodged in reference to the allegations given above, the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and Special Operations Group, Rajasthan registered an FIR on 11.09.2017 for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "the IPC") and Sections, 3, 25 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r was made to cause interference in the impugned order. The Counsel for the appellant referred the balance-sheet and ledger account submitted along with the appeal to demonstrate the source of the amount seized by the respondent. Once the source of the amount was disclosed, its retention becomes illegal, however, it was ignored by the respondent and therefore a challenge to the impugned order has been made. 6. It is, further, submitted that no scheduled offence is made out against the appellant. The 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat, 2006 and under Section 120-B of Ranbir Penal Code. The FIR was registered on 17.05.2018 and thereby the respondent recorded the ECIR on 13.03.2020 finding predicate offence and a case of money-laundering. The FIR was registered based on secret reports that the officers of the State are involved in the process to issue illegal gun and arm licenses which had become serious concerns to the security of the Jammu and Kashmir. The officers posted therein were even included an IAS Officer. 13. It is also a fact that FIR was registered even by the ATS and Special Operation Groups, Rajasthan on 11.09.2017 for the offence under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of IPC apart from Section 2, 25 and 29 of the Arms Act. A search was thereupon conducted when Rs. 65 lakhs was found with the appellant along with the documents and was seized. The Adjudicating Authority has allowed retention of the amount finding a case against the appellant. 14. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has tried to disclose the source of Rs. 65 lakhs and pray for its release. 15. We have considered the rival submissions and fact that the appellant has placed on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....twari chwok, Shaheed Chowk, Shiv Market, Kunjwani Bypass, Kalu Chak etc. in Jammu and 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 documents and it was sent along with the reasons recorded under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 on 13.05.2022 20. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further urged that there was no predicate offence disclosed against the appellant. It is for the reason that the statute pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Samvat 2006 and even the Ranbir Penal Code were not par....