TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short 'the Act of 2002') to challenge the order dated 27.01.2023 confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 16.08.2022. Brief facts of the case: 2. It is a case where an FIR was registered on 06.09.2021 by Police Station, Economic Office Wing (EOW), Delhi Police, Delhi on a complaint of Medical Superintendent, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS. 3. It is stated that one Bijender Kumar in connivance of other persons embezzled the Govt. funds of more than Rs. 5 Crores. Internal enquiry by RPC, AIIMS revealed that funds were withdrawn without supply of 'linen & other store items' in General and, therefore, entire amount was siphoned off, which was withdrawn in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisionally attached without having any nexus with the commission of crime, rather house property was purchased by the appellant from her own sources and disclosed before the Adjudicating Authority but ignored and, therefore, there exists no reference of the defence taken by the appellant. 7. It was further submitted that the appellant has not been named as an accused in the FIR or ECIR. The prosecution complaint has also not been filed against her. The FIR was lodged against the appellant's husband Bijender Kumar and even charge-sheet was filed against him but for that reason alone, house property acquired by her could not have been attached. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the property at Yamuna Vihar was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t did not raise any other issue than referred to above. It is despite the fact that he was having opportunity to raise any other legal or factual issue but the counsel shown his satisfaction and concluded the arguments and accordingly, prayer was made to allow the appeal. Arguments of counsel for the respondents: 12. The appeal was contested by the counsel for the respondents on all the issues raised by the appellant. It was submitted that appellant's husband was involved in commission of crime and accordingly, FIR was lodged for embezzlement of Rs. 5 Crores. It was in conspiracy with others. The proceeds of crime was used for purchase of the property in the name of the appellant and, therefore, provisionally attached. The appellant w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have been in the form of bank statement or the loan agreement. Thus, the source of friendly loan of Rs. 27.80 Lakhs remain for the sake of it. It is more so when the persons said to have extended loan refused for it. Their statements were recorded under Section 50(2) and (3) of the Act of 2002 and have been referred in the OC. Paras 7.8, 7.9 and 7.10 are reproduced hereunder: "7.8 Statement dated 13.07.2021 of Shri Lokman Rao Gautam: In connection with aforesaid cheque of Rs. 5,00,000 paid by Lokman Rao Gautam, in the said Bank Account of Shri Dharam Pal Kardam in relation with the said property at Gokalpuri, Delhi (S. No. 1 of the Table 3 above), summons dated 04.07.2022 was issued to Lokaman Rao and his statement was recorded on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d his statement was recorded on 22.07.2022 wherein, he inter-alia stated: (i) That his brother Bijender requested him to arrange 4 Lacs through bank account for buying a property; (ii) That his daughter Miss Priya is a teacher and he instructed her to provide an entry of Rs. 4 Lacs (Cheque) to Bijender Kumar; (iii) That in return he received Rs. 4 Lacs in cash from Bijender Kumar". 15. The persons who were named for extension of loan denied the fact aforesaid and otherwise the appellant has failed to disclose the source of the person to extend the loan to her. It was rather found that they were asked to make arrangement for payment through cheque and then paid in cash by the main accused channelizing the procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kumar otherwise deposited Rs. 7 lakhs in cash and transferred Rs. 10 lakhs in the bank account of Naresh Kumar. To channelize the proceeds of crime, the bank account of Naresh Kumar was used as conduit and, therefore, Adjudicating Authority rightly confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order on account of failure of the appellant to disclose the source to acquire the property. The appellant in her statement admitted herself to be house wife and, therefore, she had no earning to purchase the property of more than Rs. 57 lakhs. She has not stated about repayment of loan to any one if it was taken. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find that the appellant could satisfy the source to acquire the property under provisional attachmen....