TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.03.2023 against many properties of the defendants before the Adjudicating Authority. However, present set of appeals would address the provisional attachment of the properties in the hands of the appellants leaving others. Brief facts of the case: 2. The present case arises out of FIR No. 08/2011 registered on 11.02.2011 for commission of offence under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the IPC, 1860 and Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (in short 'the Act of 1978'). The FIR was registered mainly against the Directors/Officials of M/s Rose Valley Group of Companies involved in the commission of crime under IPC and the Act of 1978. The case was subsequently transferred to the CBI. 3. The allegation against M/s Rose Valley Group of companies was about the introduction of money circulation schemes under which it was accepting public deposits under the guise of allotment of plot/land and accordingly booking was to be made. However, on 03.01.2011, SEBI banned those schemes. M/s Rose Valley introduced modified version of deposit schemes, disguised as offers for hotel accommodation/facilit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roperties under provisional attachment from their own source of income and, therefore, there was no reason for the Adjudicating Authority to confirm the Provisional Attachment Order. The role of each appellant has been described by the respondents without any material to prove the same. 7. The role of Santosh Kumar Bhowmik was disclosed. He alleged to have worked as agent of M/s Rose Valley Group of companies. He had collected the funds after luring and deceiving the common man in the name of various illegal schemes floated by the company. He later on became the Director of M/s Real Estate and Landbank India Ltd. and then started training and motivating the agents to lure and deceive gullible investors. He is alleged to have purchased various immovable properties in his name and in the name of family members out of the proceeds of crime. The allegation aforesaid has been refuted by the counsel for the appellants. It was submitted that the appellant Santosh Kumar Bhowmik had disclosed the source of income to acquire the properties and otherwise he had earned the income out of the commission and thus cannot be said to be the proceeds of crime in his hand. 8. The appellant Smt. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Adjudicating Authority while confirming the Provisional Attachment Order. The appellants were not involved in commission of crime and accordingly there was no reason to provisionally attach the properties in the hands of the appellants. The entire amount of consideration for purchase of the properties was paid through banking channel and otherwise the properties were purchased prior to the registration of ECIR thus could not have been subjected to provisional attachment. The prayer was accordingly made to cause interference in the impugned orders. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the respondents ignored the fact that the three appellants other than their wives were the employees of the company and were getting remuneration out of the service rendered by them thus it could not have been taken to be the proceeds of crime. It is more so when the appellants had no control on the schemes floated by the company being an employee acted on behalf of the company and earned commission which could not have been described to be the proceeds of crime. The properties under provisional attachment were acquired by the appellants out of their income and even th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dants before the Adjudicating Authority. The arguments have been raised qua the appellants leaving others and accordingly we would be dealing with the issues raised by the appellants. 18. The learned counsel for the appellants questioned the impugned orders mainly on the ground that no material has been brought on record to show involvement of the appellants in commission of crime. If anyone was involved, it was M/s Rose Valley Group of companies and not the appellants. The properties of M/s Rose Valley could have been attached being alleged recipient of the proceeds of crime. The argument aforesaid has been made by the counsel for the appellants in ignorance of the fact that the role of each appellant has been specified in the Provisional Attachment Order followed by the original complaint and even the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The role of three appellants, namely, Santosh Kumar Bhowmik, Narayan Chandra Das, Aniruddha Roy was found to be similar. The three appellants named above remained agent for collection of deposits from the common public to promote the illegal schemes floated by the accused company. It was initially for the allotment of plot/land and afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t earned by the appellants was commission or the salary thus could not have been considered to be the proceeds of crime. The argument was not accepted for the reason that appellants became the instrument to promote illicit schemes floated by M/s Rose Valley and, therefore, equally contributed in commission of crime. In fact, it is with the active role of the appellants that M/s Rose Valley Group of companies acquired crores of rupees from the public while return to the investors was negligible. The total proceeds of crime in the hands of the accused company remained Rs. 537,83,75,670/- and Rs. 180,24,11,623/-. In the light of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the provisional attachment of the properties was caused in ignorance of the facts available on record. The position of fact is similar for appellants Narayan Chandra Das and Aniruddha Roy. They rather remained the Director of the accused company involved in commission of crime. 21. The two other appellants are Smt. Chanda Debnath Bhowmik and Smt. Mita Acharya Roy, wives of two appellants and could not disclose independent source of their income to acquire the properties under provisional attachment. The statements recor....