2025 (12) TMI 1387

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the EOW, Mumbai on 13.03.2018 on a complaint by Shri Nitin Gadkari, Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority ('MHADA') Mumbai for commission of predicate offence by the accused entered into Development Agreement for the construction of 672 flats for the tenants residing therein. It is with the arrangement to provide 1,11,476.82 sq. mtrs. area to MHADA and to sell free sale area by the developers. 3. The appellant is not named as an accused. The PAO has been caused alleging receipt of the proceed by her from the accused and therefore to the extent of proceeds received by her, the PAO was caused. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant: 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Flat ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... from her husband, Shri Sujit Patker. In the year 2010-2011 and 2011- 2012, Shri Sujit Patker extended a loan of Rs. 20 Lakhs and paid the sellers directly. Rs. 3 lakhs were paid by the appellant through banking channels and remaining Rs. 27 lakhs were paid by Smt. Swapna Patker which was sourced from her husband, Shri Surjit Patker. The amount paid by the appellant was Rs. 3 lakhs and remaining amount was out of the loan extended by Shri Sujit Patker. It was not out of the proceeds of crime in any manner and otherwise the allegation of undervaluation of the property is grossly incorrect. Otherwise, the property would not have been registered by the Sub- Registrar and the allegation aforesaid is not born out from the FIR. The funds utilized....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the appellant in December, 2020 itself i.e even prior to the registration of the ECIR dated 08.09.2021. The relevant bank statement has been enclosed to show that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind. It is erroneously stated that the return of the loan of Rs. 55 Lakhs to be not normal transaction as the same was carried out after initiation of the investigation while the ECIR was recorded on 08.09.2021 and the amount was refunded in the year 2020 itself. The prayer was caused to interference in the impugned order. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent: 9. The appeal has been contested by Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Elaborate argument was made to justify the PAO and its confirmation by the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aluation of the property. We find no allegation in the FIR for purchase of the property with undervaluation and otherwise the Sub-Registrar register the property after proper valuation not below the circle rate provided for the area. The respondent have failed to bring any money trail to show that money used for purchase of property was out of the proceeds of crime received from HDIL or the others involved in the case registered at the instance of MHADA. It was necessary to have prima facie proof to show that money was received out of the proceeds of crime and for that Shri Sujit Patker was recipient of the proceeds or was involved in the commission of crime. Therefore, we do not find any material, prima facie, to connect the appellant with....