AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1547
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....025, 50/2025 and 51/2025} Mr. Abhuday Tripathi, Advocate {MA No. 80/2025}. For the Respondent(s) : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Special Public Prosecutor C.A.V. JUDGMENT PER RAMESH SINHA, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. Heard Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha {MA No. 34/2025, 35/2025 and 37/2025}, Mr. Nikhil Varshney (through Video Conferencing), Ms. Palak Dwivedi and Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta {MA No. 41/2025, 44/2025 and 48/2025}, Mr. Shashank Mishra, Mr. Gagan Tiwari and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav {MA No. 48/2025, 49/2025, 50/2025 and 51/2025} and Mr. Abhuday Tripathi {MA No. 80/2025} learned counsel for the respective appellants. Also heard Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel for the respondent/Enforcement Directorate (for short, the ED). 2. Since all these appeals filed under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, the PMLA), arise from a common order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The appellant, in MA No. 34/2025, has prayed for the following relief(s): "a. Allow the present Appeal and call for the entire records of the Appeal filed on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority qua the Appellant; and/or b) pass such other order(s) and directions as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, proper, and necessary for the interest of justice." 7. The appellant, in MA No. 44/2025, has prayed for the following relief(s): "a) allow the present appeal and may kindly set aside the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. FPA-PMLA-6266/RP/2023 and order passed in Original Complaint No. 1874 of 2023 order dated 01.06/2023 by the adjudicating authority qua the Appellant; and/or b) pass such other order(s) and directions as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, proper and necessary for the interest of justice" 8. The appellant, in MA No. 48/2025, has prayed for the following relief(s): "It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the Impugned Order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA in FPA-PMLA No. 6228 of 2023 and the Order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority in OC No 1874/2023 dt 05.01.2023 in ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dt. 29.09.2022, and Pass such further Orders as this Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 {for short, the SAFEMA} at New Delhi (for short, the Appellate Tribunal), in FPA-PMLA-6157/RP/2023 and other connected appeals by which the learned Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 01.06.2023 (for short, the Confirmation Order) passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority (for short, the AA) in Original Complaint No. 1874/2023 by which the Provisional Attachment Order dated 09.12.2022 (for short, the PAO), against the appellants, has been confirmed. 14. The facts, in brief, as projected by the learned counsel for the parties is that on 12.07.2022 an FIR bearing Crime No. 129/2022 was registered by the Kadugodi Police station Whitefield, Bengaluru, Karnataka, for the offences under Section 186, 204, 353 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC). Suryakant Tiwari, a resident of Raipur, Chhattisgarh, was alleged to be the main accused. The offence under Section 384 IPC was thereupon added by the Karnataka State Police on 03.09.2022. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short, the CBDT) is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the permission received from the learned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, Section 384 IPC was added in the FIR but while filing the charge-sheet on 08.06.2023, it was not for the offence under Section 384 IPC and thereby cognizance of offence was taken for offence under Section 204 and 353 of IPC only. The ECIR was registered on 29.09.2022 when the offence under Section 384 IPC was existing with its addition in the FIR though while filing the charge sheet much later on 08.06.2023, it was not filed for the offence under Section 384 IPC. However, it was with the endorsement that Suryakant Tiwari and its syndicate were operating in the State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, the offence under Section 384 IPC be taken up by Chhattisgarh State Police. An FIR was thus registered by the Chhattisgarh State Police on 17.01.2024 vide FIR number 03/2024 which was for the offence transferred to the State Police of Chhattisgarh was coupled with the offence under Section 7A and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 420/120 B of IPC against Suryakant Tiwari and others. It is also a fact that on 26.06.2023, the offences and facts disclosed by the Income Tax Department were incorpo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Money Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013 for some of the properties attached by the AA in the subject OC.. Aggrieved by the Confirmation Order and Possession Notice issued on the strength of the Confirmation Order, the appellants filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the PMLA which were dismissed vide final order dated 05.12.2024 which is sought to be challenged herein this batch of appeals. 19. Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants {in MA No. 34/2025-Sourabh Modi, 35/2025-Shanti Devi Chourasia and 37/2025-Anurag Chourasia}, in nutshell, makes the following submissions: (i) foundational facts for presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA has not been established; (ii) the attachment in the present cases are bad for the want of a predicate offence; (iii) ED has failed to show 'reasons to believe' that the properties attached vide the PAO were proceeds of crime (for short, PoC) as defined under Section 2(u) of the PMLA; (iv) the manner in which the provisional attachment orders were confirmed was contra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wal in the ECIR. Section 384 of the IPC as regards EOW FIR emerged for the first time in the charge sheet filed by the EOW/ACB before the learned Special Court (PC Act) at Raipur on 19.07.2024. 22. Mr. Parghania further submitted that the ED cannot be said to having fulfilled the burden. It is well settled that a presumption can be drawn only on the basis of facts that are duly proven and not on the basis of other presumptions or assumptions or surmises. The receipt of cash by the Appellant-Anurag Chaurasia or his cousin Saumya Chaurasia (through Manish Upadhyay or otherwise) has not been definitively proven through cogent evidence. The entire case of the ED is based on uncorroborated diary entries which have no sanctity in law. Further, the ED has, against the Appellant-Anurag Chaurasia, has relied on statements of co-accused under Section 50 of the PMLA such as Manish Upadhyay, Laxmikant Tiwari, etc. and it is well settled that statements of co-accused cannot be relied on as substantive evidence without any corroboration by reliable evidence. Further statements of Deepesh Taunk and Laxmikant Tiwari have been recorded after the said co-accused were taken into custody (on 13.10.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the present case. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken notice of the lack of a schedule offence in two separate orders (Sunil Kumar Agrawal v. Directorate of Enforcement and Laxmikant Tiwari Directorate of Enforcement) passed by it in relation to the ECIR. Finally, the ED cannot be permitted to substitute the predicate offence after the registration of the ECIR and more so when the cognizance of the Prosecution Complaints have been taken by a judicial officer. A subsequent FIR registered after the ECIR following a reference from the ED would not cure the inherent defect of want of a scheduled offence in the prosecution initiated under the PMLA. 25. Mr. Parghania further submitted that the ED has failed to show reasons to believe that the properties attached vide the PAO were PoC as defined as Section 2(u) of the PMLA. The appellants proffered cogent explanations for the acquisition of the properties attached. Further none of the properties was acquired through cash transactions as alleged by the ED. The payments for the purchase of the attached properties were through proper and legitimate banking channels thereby discharging the burden under Section 8(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority ought not to have permitted the ED to improve on its allegations and sustain the Confirmation Order on grounds which were not communicated in the show cause notice. 27. It is next submitted by Mr. Parghania that the manner in which the PAO was confirmed is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The learned Appellate Tribunal also overlooked the fact that the procedure adopted by the learned AA was contrary to the principles of natural justice. Section 6(15) of the PMLA clearly mandates that the learned AA is bound by the principles of natural justice. 28. So far as the appellant Sourabh Modi is concerned, in the PAO and the OC, the ED has referred to deposits made in the bank account of a co-accused, Deepesh Taunk as well as the statement of Manoj Kumar Sinha. However, the underlying documents such as the bank accounts statements and other underlying documents were not supplied to the appellant as part of the relied upon documents. The learned AA could not have passed any order attaching the Appellant's property without supplying the underlying material. It is further well settled that the principles of natural justice cannot be ignored or done away with un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ana High Court in Seema Garg v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement {2020 SCC OnLine P&H 738}, decision of Delhi High Court in Rajiv Channa v. Union of India {2024 SCC OnLine Del 2535}, J. Sekar v. Union of India {2018 SCC OnLine Del 6523 : (2018) 246 DLT 610}, and Harish Fabianai & Others v. Enforcement Directorate & Others {2022 SCC OnLine Del 3121}, Raman Bhuraria v. Directorate of Enforcement {2023 SCC OnLine Del 657} decision of High Court for the State of Telangana in M/s. Smartcoin Financial Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Director & Another {Criminal Petition No. 2090/2023, dated 06.11.2024} and VANPIC Ports Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement {2022 SCC OnLine TS 1793}, decision of the Karnataka High Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sunil Kumar Sharma {2024 159 Taxmann.com 179 (Karnataka)}. 31. Mr. Nikhil Varshney, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-IMIPL in MA No. 41/2025} and KJSL Coal and Power Pvt. Ltd. (for short, the KSJL) in MA No. 44/2025} submitted that these cases raise fundamental question regarding the distinction between victims and perpetrators of extortion syndicates, the temporal requirements for establishing nexus between prope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... use of accounted money paid through proper banking channel and above the prevailing market rates. The learned Appellate Tribunal has failed to consider the facts and circumstances that are germane to the appellant and has mechanically passed the order without appreciating the arguments. The appellant had no nexus with the offence of extortion alleged against Suryakant Tiwari, main accused and his associates. The appellant, vide Board Resolution dated 01.05.2022 resolved to acquire more properties as the appellant was venturing into new avenues for which it needed source of additional funds/guarantees from bankers which were demanding for additional collateral securities in form of immovable assets. In pursuance of the Board Resolution dated 01.05.2022, the appellant acquired 52 properties from Suryakant Tiwari and his associates and made the advance payment in May 2022. On 30.06.2022, the Income Tax Department conducted search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the premises of Suryakant Tiwari and associates. A large number of incriminating materials were found against Suryakant Tiwari and his associates, notably, nothing that incriminated t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he huge amount to purchase property was paid in cash and it is corroborated by witnesses in their statement under Section 50 of the PMLA. (g) The appellant has purchased properties without showing the source and document to prove it. (h) The appellant did not disclose ITRs filed by them for the financial year 2022-2023 and further, the ITR for financial year 2022-23 would not justify the properties attached prior to the financial year 2022 2023. 35. Mr. Varshney submitted that the learned Appellate Tribunal failed to consider that the Appellant-M/s. IMIPL cannot be said to be Benamidar of Suryakant Tiwari as the money has been paid by the appellant through proper banking channel and it is not holding properties ostensibly on behalf of Suryakant Tiwari. It is settled law that the principle governing the determination of the question whether a transfer is Benami transaction are: (1) the burden of showing that a transfer is Benami transaction lies on the person who asserts that it is such transaction (2) if it is proved that the purchase money came from a person other than the person in whose favour the property is transferred, the purchase is pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....achment of properties which were acquired by Suryakant Tiwari prior to the commission of the offence and further transferred to the appellant by proper legal means. It is trite law that property acquired prior to the commission of offence and having no connection with the offence cannot be attached under PMLA. The learned Appellate Tribunal has wrongly observed that the appellant may have acquired the 29 (twenty nine) properties before the registration of FIR dated 12.07.2022. however, observed that the properties were acquired during the period of commission of offence, i.e. post 15.07.2022. The observation of the learned Appellate Authority is completely contradictory to the established facts and admissions made by the respondent/ED as well. 37. Mr. Varshney next submitted that it is settled principle of law that for PoC the property associated with the scheduled offence must be derived or obtained by a person "as a result of criminal activity relating to the concerned scheduled offence. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal (supra). Mr. Varshney submitted that this distinction shall be borne in mind while reckoning any property referred to in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e source of funds to acquire the properties and made payments through banking channels at markup rates on market value. The appellant disclosed the ITR of 2022-23 before the learned Appellate Tribunal, however, the Appellate Tribunal erred in noting that profit of sum of Rs. 70,14,00,000/- and tangible net worth of Rs. 287,42,00,000/- does not justify properties purchased prior to financial year 2022-23. The learned Appellate Tribunal failed to consider that none of the attached properties have been purchased prior to the said financial year. Advance consideration for all the properties was paid in May 2022, which was even antecedent to the Income Tax raid conducted on the premises of Suryakant Tiwari, main accused, i.e. 30.06.2022. The same fact is also reflected in the sale deeds of the attached properties. In terms of the above submission, it is submitted that the appellant could not have foreseen that a raid would be conducted on Suryakant Tiwari main accused, and therefore, cannot be said to have hatched this plan to prevent the attachment of properties in the hands of Suryakant Tiwari. The motive of the acquiring the properties can be adduced from the Board Resolution dated 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not enough to attach properties of the appellant which have been acquired through proper channel in pursuance of a Board Resolution duly passed on 01.05.2022. The learned Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate the distinction between Sunil Kumar Agrawal and the appellant. The appellant is an independent Company which has purchased the properties under Board Resolution dated 01.05.2022 which has been duly passed by all the Directors of the Company and not only by Sunil Kumar Agrawal. 40. Apart from the above factual circumstances, Mr. Varshney submitted that the learned Appellate Tribunal has passed an unreasoned order without application of mind to the facts of each appellant separately. The learned Appellate Tribunal passed a non speaking order in a mechanical manner failing to consider facts and circumstances germane to the appellant and failed to apply its mind to the specific facts of the appellant and dismissed the following grounds without any reasoning. The appellant has no connection with the commission of the offence, no negative parity should fall on the appellant because of the clubbing of the matter. It is unjust to let the appellant suffer for the wrongs of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....milarly. By passing a common order for all the affected parties, the learned Appellate Tribunal has blurred the distinction between the extortionist and the victims of the extortion syndicate and has failed to consider that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser. The superficial assessment of arguments of the appellant is evidenced by lack of cogency in the specific observations dealing with the appellant. The appellant as indicated above is a different class of other affected parties and by combining all the affected parties in the same order, the learned Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate the distinct nature of the appellant's arguments. 41. Mr. Varshney has drawn attention to the reply filed by the respondent/ED in its reply dated 11.04.2025 stating that the respondent / ED has raised the following baseless contentions without any corroboratory evidence only on a figment of imagination; namely - (a) The appellant became a member of the syndicate and assisted Suryakant Tiwari in alienating his PoC . In response, it is submitted that the appellant is a victim of the extortion syndicate and never became a member of the syndicate and had no connection with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 09.10.2024. (b) The 29 properties of the attached properties purchased by the appellant, were acquired prior to 15.07.2020, i.e. the date on which scheduled offence was allegedly committed. (c) Appellant had no role in he offence of extortion being done by syndicate of Suryakant Tiwari. (d) While purchasing the attached properties, the appellant has paid only sale deed consideration and no payment over and above that has been paid by the appellant in cash or by any other mode. 43. Mr. Varshney lastly submitted that In view of the above facts and submissions, the appellants submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Authority qua the appellants is liable to be set aside as the properties of the appellant does not amount to "PoC " under PMLA. It is further submitted that the impugned order has caused grave prejudice to the appellant's business activities. 44. So far as the appellant-M/s. KSJL Coal & Power Private Ltd. are concerned, Mr. Varshney submitted that it is also engaged in coal washery business since 2010 with substantial financial capacity and legitimate business operations. The company has been operating seven c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he amount was paid in cash by Suryakant Tiwari to Indus Udyog and Satya Power. (c) After the IT raids, Sunil Kumar Agrawal made sham paper transaction to show that he was the owner of the Coal Washeries and registered the same in the name of the Appellant. (d) Sunil Kumar Agrawal, promoter of the Appellant, purchased the Coal Washeries from MMCBPL for a consideration amount of Rs. 34,00,00,000 to conceal PoC. (e) Sunil Kumar Agrawal is acting as Benami of Suryakant Tiwari and has assisted in money laundering. (f) All the properties were purchased in the year 2020 and appellant did not bring cogent evidence to prove source to acquire all the properties. 46. Mr. Varshney submitted that the factual grounds are that not even a single allegation made in the impugned order with respect to the alleged role of the appellant. Bare perusal of the impugned order or the PAO would suggest that the learned Appellate Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that no role was assigned to the appellant in order attach its properties under PMLA. The learned Appellate Tribunal also failed to appreciate the appellant had no role in the commission of the scheduled off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s from MMCBPL for approximately Rs. 35,28,84,000/- (inclusive of TDS). The agreement for sale of the Coal Washeries was executed pursuant to the Board Resolution passed by the Directors of the appellant on 15.06.2022. The appellant could not have foreseen that income tax raids would be conducted on the premises of Suryakant Tiwari. Further, the appellant-Company purchased the Coal Washeries only after the grant of permission by the Collector of Korba District vide order bearing No. RP.No 202207050400027/A-21/202122 for the sale of land by MMCBPL in favour of the appellant. The advance payment for both the Coal Washeries was made through accounted income via cheque dated 20.06.2022 and the post dated cheques for the balance consideration were also issued by the appellant on the same date. The Board Resolution dated 15.06.2022 was passed by the Board of Directors of the appellant, i.e, Satyanarayan Yadav and Ajay Kumar Sahu, for expanding its business to various coal mining areas and to cater to the needs of respective customers for which it needed to acquire/build additional capacities along with a private railway siding to gain location and other strategic advantage. 47. Mr. Var....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Respondent has failed to provide any evidence to suggest that PoC or cash was used in the transaction, and it has completely ignored the fact that the appellant has the wherewithal to acquire the Coal Washeries. It has also been asserted by the respondent/Ed that the Coal Washeries were sold to the appellant by MMCBPL after the search and seizure by the Income Tax Department on 30.06.2022. In response, it is submitted that the Coal Washeries were purchased prior to the search and seizure of the Income Tax Department. The agreement for sale of the Coal Washeries was executed pursuant to the Board Resolution passed by the Directors of the appellant on 15.06 2022. The appellant could not have foreseen that income tax raids would be conducted on the premises of Suryakant Tiwari. The respondent/ED further asserts that the appellant has purchased some of the properties only on paper and in reality, these properties are still beneficially owned by Suryakant Tiwari in response to which, it is stated by the Mr. Varshney that the appellant acquired the properties in furtherance of its business interest, the averment made by the respondent/ED that one Dinesh Choudhary has entered into agre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not named in as an accused in the charge-sheet or the supplementary charge-sheet filed by ACB/EOW on 18.07.2024 and 09.10.2024. The appellant purchased two Coal Washeries situated at Korba and Bilaspur from MMCBPL for a consideration (excluding TDS) amount of Rs. 34,93,67,390/- and no cash was paid by the appellant to MMCBPL for the purchase of the coal washeries. 51. In support of his contentions, in addition to the reliance placed on the decisions by Mr. Parghaniya, Mr. Varshney, learned counsel for the appellants-Sourabh Modi, Anurag Chourasia and Shanti Devi Chourasia, places reliance on the judgments in Thakur Bhim Singh (Dead) by LRs & Another v. Thakur Kan Singh {(1980) 3 SCC 72}, B. Rama Raju v. Union of India {(2011) 4 ALD 383}, Abdullah AH Balsharaf v. Enforcement Directorate {2019 SCC OnLine Del 6428}, Satish Motilal v. Union of India {2024 SCC OnLine Ker 3410}. 52. Mr. Shashank Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants {in MA No. 48/2025-Divya Tiwari, 49/2025-Kailash Tiwari, 50/2025-Rajnikant Tiwari and 51/2025-Suryakant Tiwari} submitted that (i) the principles of natural justice have been violated. (ii) there is no underlying sched....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant herein (now sold and not in her possession) herein are completely contrary to and violative of the principles of natural justice, audi alteram partem. The appellant herein was never served a notice or supplied a copy of the OC (along with relied upon documents) or given an opportunity to file her reply to the same or given an opportunity of being heard by the AA or given an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were allegedly recorded by the Respondent herein before the PAO was confirmed and the eviction notices were issued by the Respondent herein. Thus, the PAO, the AO and the eviction notices are arbitrary, unjust and bad and vitiated in law. the eviction notices served to the appellant herein by the ED is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. As per Section 6 (15), PMLA, the learned AA is statutorily guided by the principles of natural justice even if it has the power to regulate its own procedure, which the learned AA has lost sight of. In the instant case there is no underlying scheduled offence, thus there cannot be any PoC derived from the scheduled offences. The said ECIR was registered by the ED on the basis of the Beng....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y a three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 07.08.2024 (as against the two-judge Bench in Saumya Chaurasia (supra). The crux of the ED's case is that Suryakant Tiwari was involved in running an alleged extortion racket wherein an amount of Rs. 25/- was extorted per metric tonne of coal for its transportation out of the coal mine fields. However, as stated above the offence of extortion i.e. Section 384 of IPC, was dropped by the Bengaluru Police after due investigation. Even the EOW, Raipur did not include S.384 IPC in its FIR registered on 17.01.2024. The ED alleged that the total PoC in this case is about 540 Crores, whereas the ACB/EOW, Raipur has alleged that this amount is about Rs. 318 Crores. These figures do not have any basis in fact or law. The investigating agency, at best, could have made an allegation only to the extent of the material in their possession i.e. the amount mentioned by persons in their statements recorded by the agency, which is, not more than Rs. 25-30 Crores. As per the statements made by Suryakant Tiwari, he was in the business of carrying coal since 2004-2005. In 2013 got a contract of carrying coal from PKCL, controlled by the Adani Gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch shall be a person having experience in the field of law, administration, finance or accountancy. Thus, in total, there must be 3 persons to constitute the AA. At present, the AA constituted under Section 6 of the PMLA comprises of only a single Member from outside the field of law, who is also the acting Chairperson. Therefore, the conduct of proceedings by or before the AA is completely devoid of jurisdiction and illegal for the reason of coram non-judice. Since the Member (Finance) alone as a Single Member has conducted the proceedings in the subject OC, the mandatory provisions of Section 6 stand violated. It is well-settled that if the person who made the order did not have the authority to do so, then such an order would only be a nullity. The adjudication of the subject OC required consideration of pure questions of law especially as to the interpretation of various provisions under PMLA. It is well settled in law that in a case where an interpretation of a statutory provision or rule arises before a tribunal, the matter must be heard and adjudicated by a bench comprising of at least one judicial member. The AA constituted under the PMLA is not an independent and impartial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have been attached on the basis that these are allegedly the properties in relation to PoC acquired by Suryakant Tiwari. 59. So far as appellant-Suryakant Tiwari is concerned, the properties mentioned at Sl. Nos. 6-70 have been attached on the basis that these are allegedly the properties in relation to PoC acquired by the appellant. It is stoutly denied that any of the aforesaid properties are properties in relation to PoC acquired by the appellant. It is further stoutly denied that the appellant has derived, obtained or acquired any POC, as alleged or otherwise. As is evident from the description of these properties contained in the subject OC itself, several of these properties are not even owned by the appellant and are in fact, owned and duly registered in the names of other persons, who are separate legal entities/ persons. For instance, (a). Properties at Sl. Nos. 6 and 66 were owned by Navneet Tiwari (b). Property at Sl. Nos. 7 was owned by Navneet Tiwari and Aabhika Tiwari (c). Property at Sl. No. 8 was owned by Sonali Dubey (d). Properties at SI. Nos. 9, 52, and 67-68 were owned by Kailash Tiwari (e). Properties at Sl. Nos.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same is the case with the property at Sl. No. 70 also, i.e., sold to M/s IMIPL vide sale deed registered on 22.08.2022. Even otherwise, and as per the ED's own case, all these properties (viz. S.No.6-70) are presently (and even prior to the passing of the PAO and filing of the subject OC) held by M/s Indermani Minerals India Pvt. Ltd. (at Sl. Nos. 6-28, 40-70) or M/s KJSL Coal & Power Pvt. Ltd. (at Sl. Nos. 29-39). As such, the appellant has no concern with these properties, and they are being wrongly attached in relation to alleged PoC acquired by the appellant. Further, to the best of the Appellant's knowledge, no legal proceeding under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 has been initiated by the competent authority against the appellant or any of his alleged 'Benamidar'. As such, the action of attaching properties on the ground that they are allegedly beneficially owned by the appellant are wholly without jurisdiction and untenable, apart from being devoid of any merit or substance. Rest of the submissions remains the same as has been advanced above. 62. In support of his contentions, in addition to what has been relied by other couns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant having above 500 gms. gold declared while joining service in 2009 to LBSNAA which was illegally regarded as 'PoC ' by investigation authority, and the Appellate Tribunal also confirmed that without assigning any valid reason for this in impugned order. The property/properties attached by the investigating authority have been purchased by the appellant's wife through her legitimate earnings and are neither PoC nor associated with any criminal activity much less than the predicate offences. Further, it is the case of the investigating authority that the said property/properties being attached belongs to the appellant and further the appellant has not been able to explain the source of said property/properties. However, in connection to the said property/ properties, it is submitted that the appellant does not have any connection to said property/properties as the same belongs to his wife and family members / relatives of the appellant, obtained through a legitimate source of income from various family businesses. The manner in which the attachment has been shown in the name of the appellant clearly shows the premeditated mindset of the investigating authority to build....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicate being operated and coordinated by Suryakant Tiwari along with his associates and other persons wherein additional unauthorized cash was being collected over and above the legal amount fixed against the delivery order issued by SECL from various entities who were lifting and transporting the coal throughout the State of Chhattisgarh. An FIR No. 129/2022 dated 12.07.2022 was registered by Karnataka State Police, Kadugodi Police Station, Whitefield, Bengaluru invoking therein Section 186, 204, 353, 384 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Suryakant Tiwari Sto Late Shri Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, resident of 102 and 103, Exotica Grand, in front of TV Tower, Raipur-492001 and others. It is to be mentioned here that Section 384 of the IPC was added in the FIR by the Karnataka State Police vide application dated 03.09.2022. Thereafter, on 17.01.2024, ACB/EOW, Raipur, Chhattisgarh police has registered an FIR bearing Crime Number 03/2024 dated 17.01.2024 under Sections 420, 120B of IPC and 7, 7A and 12 of PC Act, 1988 (as amended) against the appellants and other accused person in the same matter. As the Sections 420, 120B of IPC and 7, 7A and 12 of PC Act, 1988 invoked in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al transportation was required to be verified manually from the concerned Mining Office and under the guise of the said letter and instruction for manual verification of DO, Suryakant Tiwari through his associates started to extort Rs.25 per tonne against the coal transportation. Suryakant Tiwari deployed several of his associates in the Districts from which coal was mined by SECL in the State of Chhattisgarh and these persons developed liaisons with Collectorate Office and other agencies. Unless cash of Rs.25/tonne of coal transported was paid to associates of Suryakant Tiwari, the concerned Mining Officer in the office of Collectorate would not issue the requisite transit pass. All of this was facilitated/coordinated by Suryakant Tiwari with clout of Smt. Saumya Chaurasia and other government officials. Once these associates of Shri Suryakant Tiwari received the additional charge of Rs. 25 per tonne of coal to be transported, message was then communicated to the Mining Officer and thereafter the delivery orders were cleared for transport. Thereafter, associates (collection agents deployed at difference places) of Suryakant Tiwari used to maintain data of Coal DO and payment of il....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as in no way affected the party(s) and has in no way occasioned a failure of justice. Thereafter, on 17.01.2024, ACB/EOW, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Police has registered an FIR bearing number 03/2024 dated 17.01.2024 under Sections 420, 120B of IPC and 7, 7A and 12 of PC Act, 1988 (as amended) against the appellants and other accused person in the same matter. Also, Section 384 IPC has been added by the State EOW in the said FIR which also is a scheduled offence under PMLA. As the Sections 420, 120B of IPC and 7, 7A and 12 of PC Act, 1988 invoked in the FIR are scheduled offence under PMLA hence the said FIR is also included in the ECIR by issuing an addendum. It is also submitted that the State EOW has filed charge-sheet in the same matter on 18.07.2024, cognizance of which was taken on 19.07.2024. Further, a supplementary charge-sheet in the same matter was also filed by ACB/EOW on 09.10.2024. 68. Mr. Pande submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Soumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8847/2023 has also upheld the above understanding of the charge-sheet and current status of the scheduled offence vide its judgment dated 14.12.2023 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s under Section 66 of PMLA, it is submitted that during course of investigation in the instant case, ED had come across of many cognizable offences which fall within the jurisdiction of ACB and EOW Chhattisgarh and then the same was being disclosed by this Directorate under Section 66 (2) of PMLA to ACB and EOW. Thereafter, ACB and EOW has conducted independent verification of the disclosure and since a prima facie cognizable offence was disclosed, ACB and EOW registered an FIR No. 03/2024 under its statutory duty. It is reiterated that this Court in its order passed in CRMP No. 721/2024 (supra) upheld that ED was legally mandated to share information of commission of offences to concerned agencies under Section 66 of PMLA and police upon receiving information about commission of cognizable offence has no option but to mandatory register FIR. There is no violation of order of any Court of law; instead, the action of the State is complete compliance of the law. 72. It is further submitted that the learned AA had formed reasons to believe collectively for all the defendants. On receipt of complaint from ED, the AA has to form reasons to believe in a broad manner and it cannot be e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an and receiving and conveying unofficial instructions from Saumya Chaurasia to the District level IAS/IPS officers. Suryakant Tiwari was the layer of security between her and the state bureaucrats. These IAS/IPS Officers were providing essential environment for extortion of illegal levies by Coal Cartel. This illegal authority was essential for him to control the district machinery and enabled him to extort illegal levy of Rs 25 per tonne from coal transportation. Without his concurrence, no NOC was issued by the district machinery. He was employed by her to safeguard herself from consequences of unofficial dealings and actions conducted on her behalf. * For the aforementioned acts done by Saumya Chaurasia for coal cartel, a part of PoC for Saumya Chaurasia was being transferred by Suryakant Tiwari through one Manish Upadhyay. Manish Upadhyay is a relative of Suryakant Tiwari and a close associate of both Saumya Chaurasia and Suryakant Tiwari. ED investigation has established that Manish Upadhayay was planted in a flat right opposite to the flat of Saumya Chaurasia and he acted as a conduit & courier by looking after all the logistics regarding the movement of PoC in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of direct PoC having flown into the immovable properties held by the appellant-Sourabh. 75. So far as appellant-Shanti Devi Chaurasia {in MA No.35/2025}, she is the mother of Saumya Chaurasia. The cash was used at two levels, first the cheque payments made against purchase of these properties were arranged by Anurag Chaurasia in the guise of unsecured loan from the person of "no means" and then cash amount paid over and above the consideration amount to purchase the properties in the name of Chaurasia family. Majority of the real sale consideration was paid in cash form to sellers and the minority portion via cheque. She also claimed that the attached properties were acquired out of from the amount transferred by her daughter Ms. Saurabhi Chaurasia. A few attached properties purchased by the appellant jointly with her relative Anurag Chaurasia. For small cheque amount, Anurag Chaurasia has arranged accommodation entries in the guise of supplying vegetables to Motel Madhuban as well as unsecured loans from one Bablu Saw. The funds received from Motel Madhuban and Bablu Saw were nothing but bank entries arranged by Shri Anurag Chourasia against the illegal cash acquired by Smt. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther submitted that ED has analyzed the source of fund transferred by Mrs. Saurabhi Chaurasia to her mother Smt. Shanti Devi Chaurasia and it is revealed that the source of fund transferred by Smt. Saurabhi Chaurasia were from different persons including Coal Transporters namely M/s RK Transport and Construction Limited (RKTC), M/s Prithivi Realcon and Transportation Private Limited and M/s MS Patel. It is to be mentioned that investigation has revealed that bank accounts of M/s R K Transport and Construction Limited, M/s Prithivi Realcon & Transportation Private Limited were used by the Coal Cartel for accommodation bank entries against the illegal cash. These companies were also paying extortion money at the rate of Rs.25 per tonne on coal to Suryakant Tiwari. Also, Mansukh Lal Patel, Proprietor of M/s. M.S. Patel is acting as Benamidar for Saumya Chaurasia and properties registered in his name, have been provisionally attached vide the PAO No. 01/2023 dated 29.01.2023 which has also been confirmed by the learned AA vide order dated 17.07.2023. It is crystal clear that the source of fund transferred by Smt. Saurabhi Chaurasia to her mother. Shanti Devi Chaurasia is not her genu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of "no means" and then cash amount paid over and above the consideration amount to purchase the properties in the name of Chaurasia family. Majority of the real sale consideration was paid in cash form to sellers and the minority portion via cheque. She also claimed that the attached properties were acquired out of from the amount transferred by her daughter Ms. Saurabhi Chaurasia. A few attached properties purchased by the appellant jointly with her relative Anurag Chaurasia. For small cheque amount, Anurag Chaurasia has arranged accommodation entries in the guise of supplying vegetables to Motel Madhuban as well as unsecured loans from one Bablu Saw. The funds received from Motel Madhuban and Bablu Saw were nothing but bank entries arranged by Anurag Chourasia against the illegal cash acquired by Saumya Chaurasia and transferred to Ranchi by Manish Upadhyay. The funds received as bank entries in the bank account of the family members of Anurag Chourasia was then given as unsecured loan to Anurag Chaurasia and to Smt. Shanti Devi Chaurasia (mother of Smt. Saumya Chaurasia) and subsequently utilized in purchase of the properties in the name of Shri Anurag Chourasia and Shanti De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld benami for Saumya Chaurasia and were all a result of direct PoC having flown into the immovable properties held by the appellant-Anurag Chaurasia. 78. So far as the appellant-IMIPL is concerned, the role of Sunil Kumar Agrawal, who is the promoter of the said company has a close relationship with Suryakant Tiwari and investigation has revealed that Sunil Kumar Agrawal had knowingly and willingly helped Suryakant Tiwari in layering the PoC and obfuscate the real ownership of tainted properties of Suryakant Tiwari and his Benamidars. Despite being a man of means and business standing, he knowingly acted as a Benami for Suryakant Tiwari and has assisted in the money laundering process. 79. Dr. Pande submitted that though the appellant-IMIPL was not named in the charge-sheet of law enforcement agency, it is settled law that even persons not accused under the charge-sheet can be investigated under PMLA and can be made liable to attachment proceedings under PMLA. It is submitted that any property in the name of any person can be attached, irrespective of the fact whether such person was accused in predicate offence, if such property was found to have been acquired from PoC gene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were beneficially owned by Suryakant Tiwari. These properties were attached by ED under clause 'value thereof as per Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA as total value of PoC in this case collected by Suryakant Tiwari and his syndicate is about 540 crore rupees and due to non-co-operation of Suryakant Tiwari only part amount of such PoC could be traced by ED. Later, after searches of Income Tax Department and initiation of PMLA investigation into instant extortion racket, Suryakant Tiwari alienated the aforesaid properties to M/s Indermani Mineral Pvt. Ltd. to evade legal attachment of such properties. The appellant herein is wrongfully portraying itself as a victim of extortion syndicate. During investigation, it is revealed that Sunil Kumar Agrawal "the promoter of the appellant herein" has assisted Suryakant Tiwari in placement, layering of PoC generated by coal syndicate and projecting it as an untainted property. It is worth mentioning herein that initially Sunil Agarwal had started as a Coal user who made payments to the syndicate of Suryakant Tiwari. But subsequently, with the growing need of accounted money by the syndicate for layering their ever-increasing cash amounts and for ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertainly assisted the main accused Suryakant Tiwari in alienating his properties acquired with PoC or deemed as PoC as equivalent value and projecting the same as untainted. For this, he purchased those properties from Suryakant Tiwari and his associates on paper by paying sale consideration amount through banking channel which was later return to him in cash by the associates of Suryakant Tiwari. Thus, it is established that the appellant knowingly entered into sham transactions with Suryakant Tiwari and his associates to transfer PoC in his (his company's) own name. Therefore, Sunil Kumar Agrawal came into possession of PoC in the form of 52 properties belonging to Suryakant Tiwari and his associates which was later attached under PMLA. With regard to claim that the appellant was not arraigned as accused in the charge sheet, it is submitted that investigation under PMLA has wider scope and a person not named as accused in the LEA charge sheet can be investigated and prosecuted under PMLA, 2002 if such person is found to have involved in the process of laundering the PoC or any activity connected to it. 84. It is further submitted that during investigation, statement of var....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Agarwal knowingly and willingly participated in these transactions to layer and obfuscate the real ownership of these tainted properties. Despite being a man of means and business standing, he knowingly acted as a Benami for Suryakant Tiwari and has assisted in the money laundering process. He has drawn attention to the details of attachment with regard to the appellant in PAO No. 2/2022 in the form of Table A of the written submission. 87. The investigation has clearly established that Suryakant Tiwari had infused PoC i.e. cash into purchase of Coal Washeries. The deal of the two Coal Washeries was done for Rs. 96 Crores out of which Rs. 34 Crores was the registered value and was paid through banking channel and rest of the amount was to be paid in cash. These were forcibly purchased by Suryakant Tiwari from M/s Indus Udyog and Infrastructure Private Limited and Satya power and Ispat Limited in approximately Rs. 96 Crores which is much more than whatever book value was shown during their purchase by Suryakant Tiwari. Later on, these coal washeries were transferred in the name of appellant herein by a sham transaction in an attempt to project is as untainted in the hands of ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....am transactions and in effect Sunil Agarwal's Indermani Group is holding these assets for Suryakant Tiwari and his benamis. With regard to sale of 13% share in MMCBPL to IMIPL, it is stated that regardless of the fact whether transfer of share was reported to MCA or not, Anup Bansal clearly stated in his statement recorded under Section 50 of PMLA that he had received Rs. 3,00,00,000/- from Sunil Kumar Agrawal and the remaining amount was adjusted to him by Suryakant Tiwari and in contrast of statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC the statement under Section 50 of PMLA are deemed as judicial proceeding and carries evidentiary value. 88. With respect to the appellants-Divya Tiwari {MA No. 48/2025}, Kailash Tiwari {MA No. 49/2025}, Rajanikant Tiwari {MA No. 50/2025} and Suryakant Tiwari {MA No. 51/2025}, are concerned, they all are close relatives. Smt. Divya Tiwari, Smt. Kailash Tiwari and Rajnikant Tiwari are wife, mother and elder brother, respectively of appellant-Suryakant Tiwari. 89. Suryakant Tiwari is the key person and main coordinator of the syndicate on the ground to collect illegal levy from the transportation of Coal and other minerals. He has access to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Such was the fear created by him with the active support of the State machinery that no one dared to make a formal complaint against him. Suryakant Tiwari absconded from his residence during the ED search operation and returned back only after hiding his mobile phone and other personal devices. On his return he gave very vague explanations about his whereabouts of the last 10 days. He has also made sure that all his employees have gone into hiding and are not responding to the summons of ED. 90. Smt. Kailash Tiwari is the mother of Suryakant Tiwari and actively participated in his illegal business as far as handling of the illegal cash is concerned. As per the offence of money laundering defined under 3 of the PMLA, she has knowingly assisted in the process of concealment, possession, use and projection of PoC as untainted property. She lives at Shankar Nagar, where majority of the illegal cash was kept for safe custody. There are various cash transaction entries written by Rajnikant Tiwari in the name of Smt. Kailash Tiwari in the seized BS. Kailash Tiwari knew that her son was involved in the illegal levy business. She utilized parts of the PoC and also lent her name for purch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the cash generated out of extortion activity. He is responsible and party to this conspiracy and is involved in projecting the tainted money as untainted money. By setting up various partnership firms and companies, he has helped Suryakant Tiwari in layering the PoC with unsecured loans, and creation of Benami assets and is projecting them as untainted asset. During course of investigation statements by various associates of Suryakant Tiwari such as Nikhil Chandrakar, Laxmikant Tiwari and other have shown that apart from Suryakant Tiwari, only Rajnikant Tiwari could verify the bills relating to expenditure for various projects like construction activities etc being carried out under the supervision of Suryakant Tiwari. Employees of Suryakant Tiwari used to message Rajnikant Tiwari about the expenses done by them as well as the money spent in the projects of Suryakant Tiwari for payments/reimbursements. During the course of IT search at the residence of Rajnikant Tiwari Rs. 48,38,600/- were seized from his possession. Further, during the statement under Section 50 of the PMLA many of the sellers of properties purchased by the coal syndicate accepted that they finalized the deals of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge of adjudication or even Appellate Tribunal is not a proper platform for cross examining the witnesses of the case. This opportunity is granted by law to the appellant at the trial stage in Special PMLA Court which is the competent authority to judge the evidences and witnesses of this case on merit and decide on final confiscation of attached properties. However, though cross-examination would be an integral part of the process of adjudication and would not be alien to Section 8 proceedings, allowing such grounds at the stage of adjudicating in every case would result in delay and defeat the purpose of the said adjudication. The request for cross-examination must be examined seriously and not in a routine manner. The proceedings before this learned AA have to proceed in a speedy manner as they need to be completed within 180 days. A Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LPA 99/2014 titled Arun Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and Another, was dealing with a similar situation of rejection of right to cross-examination, and therein, the learned Division Bench observed that the petitioners herein would be capable of availing their statutory remedies, once the final or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and concealing the PoC from clutch of respondent herein. In nutshell, all these illegal activities of accused persons were hindering the process of unearthing PoC and providing opportunities to accused persons to conceal, transfer and alienate the POC. Both the authorities i.e. the AA and the Appellate Tribunal have ventured into determining whether the concerned appellant is involved in committing the offence of money laundering or not. At the time of searches conducted by ED, Sameer Vishnoi stated in his statement under Section 17 of PMLA, 2002 that all the seized cash and jewellery pertains to his wife Preeti Godara who could not explain the source of the seized cash and valuables. In her statement under Section 17 of the PMLA, Preeti Godara stated that the said jewellery recovered from their possession pertains to her, however in her statement under Section 50 of the PMLA, she stated the names of various false owners of the said seized cash and jewellery, which clearly was an afterthought to attempt the projection of tainted money as untainted money. PMLA investigation has revealed that Sameer Vishnoi has accrued illegal income by abusing his official positions in the Governme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ait for the exhausting of the 45 Days appeal period. The moment the attachment has been confirmed, the authorized officer is well equipped with the power to issue Eviction Notice. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that the whole process has been done as per the procedure prescribed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of OPTO Circuit India Ltd. v. AXIS Bank & others, Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2021 has addressed the issue regarding the procedure to be followed while exercising the powers under PMLA, and held that the said procedure is to be followed strictly and if followed as per the law, then there will be no procedural lacunae. 96. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and materials available on record. 97. We have also carefully gone through the Confirmation Order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the learned AA and the order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal on 05.12.2024 and also the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA. 98. It would be beneficial to quote some of the relevant provisions of the PMLA for better understanding of the issues. The offence of money launder....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay be prescribed: Provided that no such order of attachment shall be made unless, in relation to the scheduled offence, a report has been forwarded to a Magistrate under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or a complaint has been filed by a person authorised to investigate the offence mentioned in that Schedule, before a Magistrate or court for taking cognizance of the scheduled offence, as the case may be, or a similar report or complaint has been made or filed under the corresponding law of any other country: Provided further that, notwithstanding anything contained in first proviso, any property of any person may be attached under this section if the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by him for the purposes of this section has reason to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that if such property involved in money-laundering is not attached immediately under this Chapter, the non-attachment of the property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act. Provided also that for the purposes of computing the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of investigation and trial. It is not a final determination of guilt but a step to preserve the property suspected to be involved in money laundering. It is well-settled that offences under the PMLA are of a distinct nature where the PoC are often concealed through layered transactions and indirect modes. Direct evidence is seldom available in such cases, and the determination of the proceeds of crime often rests on circumstantial evidence and the analysis of financial trails. 102. Section 24 of the PMLA is with regard to burden of proof. It states that in any proceeding related to proceeds of crime under this Act, (a) in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering; and (b) in the case of any other person the Authority or Court, may presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering. Once the property is identified as involved in money laundering, the burden shifts on the accused to prove that the property is not proceeds of crime. In the present case, the appellants have not discharged this bur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urchasers of the properties sought to be attached, there was absolutely no reason to believe in the show cause notice, appellants are victims of extortion by syndicate of Suryakant Tiwari. 105. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the learned AA as well as the learned Appellate Tribunal have not applied their mind and case of each appellant should have been dealt with individually. When all the appellants are accused in one offence, then there was no reason to segregate their cases. It has been prima facie established that the properties acquired by the appellants were out of the PoC earned through the syndicate. The submissions advanced before this Court were also advanced before the learned AA as well as the learned Appellate Tribunal and the said submissions have been discussed by the AA as well as the learned Appellate Tribunal and as such, it cannot be said that the orders were passed without application of mind. The order passed by the learned AA is quite detailed one and so is the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The details with regard to the incriminating materials have been discussed and only after that, the orders impugned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e directly involved and commit the crime but an offence under the PMLA is also made out if the person is accused of layering and integration of the PoC. 109. The learned appellant Tribunal has separately analysed every allegation made by and against each accused at greater length and consequent upon that passed its order dated 05.12.2024. The learned Appellate Tribunal has discussed at length about each property in question of respective appellant and rebutted all fabricated allegation made by them. After that only, the learned Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the appellants citing they do not find a case to cause interference in the impugned order of the learned Adjudicating Authority. The AA forms his opinion to proceed with adjudication proceedings based on the material adduced by the complaint and the same was communicated to the appellants by way of show cause notices along with reasons to form such opinion and same were also provided to the appellant. It is further submitted that mere forming of opinion does not mean that the matter is decided by the AA. The AA decided the matter by passing a speaking order under Section 8(3) of PMLA only after hearing both the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the offence under Section 384 IPC. The Special Court of Karnataka had made a reference to request the State Police to transfer the offence under Section 384 of the IPC to the Chhattisgarh State Police upon which the FIR was registered by the Chhattisgarh Police which was not only for the offence referred in the FIR but was with the addition of the offences under the PC Act and other scheduled offences. The observations made by the learned Appellate Tribunal vide paragraphs 30 and 31 are reasoned one and we concur with the same. 111. The nexus between the appellant and the alleged PoC is also well established. It is the say of the appellants that they had duly informed the source for acquisition of the property in question and as such, the orders passed by the AA as well as the Appellate Tribunal is erroneous. In the case in hand, the FIR was lodged after prima facie disclosure of commission of offence, but the offence was committed much earlier to registration of the ECIR and the FIR. The syndicate could not have extorted the money in a day or two but was a continuous process and it is a matter of investigation as to on which date the said extortion started. Further, even if any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... even prior to commission of crime. It is for the reason that any property acquired subsequent to the commission of crime would be directly or indirectly proceeds of crime and then, it would fall in the first limb of the definition of proceeds of crime. In the second limb, which refers to "the value of any such property" would indicate any other property which was acquired prior to the commission of crime and it would be attached only when the proceeds directly or indirectly obtained or derived out of the criminal activity is not available. It may be on account of siphoning off or vanished by the accused. In those circumstances the property of equivalent value can be attached. The word "the value of any such property" signifies without any embargo that it should be the property purchased after the commission of crime or prior to it rather it would apply in both the eventuality in the given circumstance. Thus, we are not in agreement with the counsel for the appellant who has questioned the attachment in reference to the property acquired prior to commission of crime. We are not going even further that the properties have nexus with the proceeds out of the crime but even in given ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all other accused have participated in layering or integration of the PoC. A diary is alleged to be seized by the ITD from the residence of Rajnikant Tiwari, relative of Suryakant Tiwari in a raid. All the accused have played different roles in commission of the offence. In the diary, there are entries with respect to flow of funds which were originating from the collection of illegal Rs. 25 per tonne extortion money from the coal traders on the instructions of the Surayakant Tiwari. The State Government used to issue a DO, then only the coal excavated could be transported within the State or outside the State. Before 2020, the system which was in vogue was that the DO will be issued online. But taking the benefit of Covid-19, the online system was changed to offline system at the behest of Sameer Vishnoi who was at the helm of affairs of the Mining Department. Then started the entire game of extortion. Any coal trade who intended to get the DO, had to pay the extortion money to the people of Suryakant Tiwari and then only green signal was given to the Mining Officer and the DO was granted. These facts have come in the statements recorded in the Section 50 PMLA. Statement recorded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent dated 14.12.2023 observed as under: "26. The Court also does not find any substance in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal for the Appellant that the scheduled offences i.e. Section 384 and 120 B having been dropped from the chargesheet submitted against the accused Suryakant Tiwari in connection with the FIR No. 129 of 2022 registered at Kadugodi Police Station Bengaluru, and the ACJM Bengaluru vide the order dated 16.06.2023 having taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 204 and 353 IPC only, which are not the scheduled offences under the PMLA Act, no scheduled offence survived at the time of passing of the impugned order and that the proceedings were/are without jurisdiction. 27. Apart from the fact that neither the Chargesheet dated 08.06.2023 nor the cognizance order 16.06.2023 were placed on record during the course of arguments before the High Court as they never existed at that time, the I.O. in the Chargesheet filed in connection with the said FIR no. 129 of 2022 against Suryakant Tiwari has categorically mentioned that "as the accused (Suryakant Tiwari) found to be committed offence under Section 384 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4-15) "28. Before dealing with the application for bail on merit, it is to be considered whether the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA are binding on the High Court while considering the application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no doubt that PMLA deals with the offence of money laundering and the Parliament has enacted this law as per commitment of the country to the United Nations General Assembly. PMLA is a special statute enacted by the Parliament for dealing with money laundering. Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 clearly lays down that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not affect any special statute or any local law. In other words, the provisions of any special statute will prevail over the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of any conflict. 29. Section 45 of the PMLA starts with a non obstante clause which indicates that the provisions laid down in Section 45 of the PMLA will have overriding effect on the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of conflict between them. Section 45 of the PMLA imposes following two conditions for gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to any person accused of committing offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, even when the application for bail is considered under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." The decisions of this Court in the case of Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India {(2014) 8 SCC 768}, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI {(2013) 7 SCC 439}, and Union of India v. Hassan Ali Khan {(2011) 10 SCC 235} have been noticed in the aforesaid decision. 21. The consistent view taken by this Court is that economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. Further, when attempt is made to project the proceeds of crime as untainted money and also that the allegations may not ultimately be established, but having been made, the burden of proof that the monies were not the proceeds of crime and were not, therefore, tainted shifts on the accused persons under Section 24 of the Act of 2002." 121. It is not essential for ....