AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Adv. and Mr. Ritivik Saha, Adv. ORDER The batch of appeals have ben filed to challenge the order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order ('PAO') dated 02.11.2023. Brief facts of the case: 2. It is a case where an FIR No. 008/2016 was registered by the Himachal Pradesh Police Authority and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 31.05.2018 followed by a Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 10.04.2019. It was for commission of offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'). It was alleged that M/s Indian Technomac Company Limited (in short "M/s ITCOL") was engaged in fraudulent activities by raising and submitting fak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat in none of the FIR, the appellant was named as an accused and even in the charge-sheet, the appellant was not named as an accused by the CBI. No allegation was made either for commission of crime or to assist to make out a case against the appellant. They were not connected with the crime, yet the properties were provisionally attached only for the reason that the Company remained recipient of the advance payment amount from the accused company towards supply of minerals. The receipt of advances as a consequence thereof could not have been considered either proceeds of crime or its layering. The appellant company received different advances from the year 2011 till 2013 from the accused company in pursuance to the Memorandum of Understan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore no money remained with the appellant. In view of the above also, there was not reason to attach the properties belonging to the appellants' companies. 9. Ld. Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the respondent mainly relied on the statement of Shri Gautam Seth without corroborative evidence. It is solely based on the statement of Shri Gautam Seth said to have disclosed payment by M/s ITCOL to Orissa based mining company, the impugned order has been passed. 10. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that merely that appellant was not holding mining lease, it was not precluded to make supply of minerals under the MoU. In fact, the appellant company had entered into an agreement for excavation and supply of m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the proceedings of confiscation. The argument raised by the appellant reveals receipt of amount towards supply of minerals pursuant to the MoU. However, as per the statement of the appellant themselves, no mineral was ever supplied. It was stated that the appellant company was always ready to supply the mineral, rather, it was excavated and stocked but the accused company failed to take delivery of the mineral against the advance payment to the appellants. It is despite repeated requests. It may be in absence of the trade licence but for that the appellant could not have blamed or alleged to have received the proceeds of crime. 14. We find that the appellant has received the money out of the proceeds of crime. If it could have been out o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... continue to make advance payment time to time for supply of minerals without its actual supply. 15. It is stated that the appellant company was not named as an accused by the CBI in its charge-sheet without realizing that for provisional attachment of the property, one need not to be an accused, rather, if one is recipient of the proceeds or it has been parked with him, the PAO can be passed against the person. In the instant case, the statement of Shri Gautam Seth recorded under Section 50(2) of the Act of 2002 was sufficient to corroborate the bank statement and other documents to show transfer of money out of the proceeds of crime by the accused and no material was ever supplied by it. 16. The proceeds of crime was layered to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and M/s ITCOL and M/s Divya Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. for supply of minerals. The fact on records reveals that no mineral was ever supplied to those companies. Shri Shakti Ranjan Dash and his company purchased two properties in Bhubaneswar in the name of M/s Anmol Mines Pvt. Ltd. Shri Shakti Ranjan Dash through M/s Anmol Mines Pvt. Ltd. and made payment of Rs. 23.52 Crores on behalf of M/s Arjun Ladha. However, no document could be produced by the appellant to show transfer of money back to the accused / sister company. Thus, finding it to be proceeds of crime in the hands of the appellant, the respondent caused PAO which has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. 19. It is submitted that the impugned order is solely based on the state....