TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....page 3 & 4 of the impugned order. 2. As per the facts of the case, CBI, Branch BSFC, Kolkata registered a FIR bearing no. RCBSK2014E0007 dated 14.08.2014 for commission of offences under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 420/467/471 IPC and substantive offences thereunder. The said FIR was registered on the basis of complaint lodged by DGM Central Bank of India, wherein it is alleged that M/s. Bengal India Global Infrastructure Ltd. and its Directors S/Sh. Bipin Kumar Vohra, Arjun Kumar Santhalia & Smt. Sanjukta Vohra and the Directors of M/s Bholanath Ingots (P) Ltd., M/s. Gouri Iron & Steels (P) Ltd., M/s Subhlabh Steels (P) Ltd. and Sri B.K. Newatia, Chartered Accountant & Partner of M/s. Jaikishan Chartered Accountants and unknown others.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... confirmed the previous Provisional Attachment Order vide order dated 16.09.2016. Being aggrieved by the said previous order, the appellants and other filed the appeals (appeal no. 1512-1514, 1517, 1521/2016) before this Appellate Tribunal. The said appeals were allowed by this Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 10.10.2024, on the ground that the respondent ED failed to file the Prosecution Complaint against the said appellants within the prescribed statutory period of 90 days. He pointed out that the present case pertains to second Provisional Attachment Order dated 17.03.2017, vide which the properties were attached by the respondent ED. After passing of the second Provisional Attachment Order, respondent ED filed OC 714 of 2017 before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Authority on 04.08.2017, then at that time, no limit was specified in section 8(3) of PMLA, 2002, for filing of Prosecution Complaint within 90 days. This particular statutory provision was incorporated w.e.f. 19.04.2018 by way of amendment. Accordingly, he stressed that the confirmation order dated 4.8.2017 cannot be covered on account of subsequent amendment. He further pointed out that the prosecution complaint is already filed in the year 16.01.2020, hence present appeal needs to be dismissed being infructuous, as the confirmed attached properties are already relied for confiscation. He argued that if the said properties are released then whole purpose of trial will become useless exercise. Prayer is accordingly made to dismiss ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9.04.2018 for filing Prosecution Complaint within 90 days. The said amendment is silent regarding the previous attachment and confirmation orders passed prior to 19.04.2018. Thus, in my view, the right already accrued in favor of the respondent ED on the basis of unamended provision cannot be taken away by way of amendment w.e.f. 19.04.2018, in absence of any clarification on this aspect in the Act of Amendment. Thus, I do not agree with the view taken in the final order passed by coordinate bench of this Appellate Tribunal, in case of Bipin Kumar Vohra and Ors. v. Joint Director, ED, Kolkata and Ors in appeal no. 1512-1514, 1517, 1521/2016 wherein the appeal was allowed on this preliminary legal issue that the subject properties will be re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive of the trial court/Ld. Special Judge, PMLA court. But if the appeal would have been disposed of before the filing of the said prosecution complaint then certainly the present appeal would have been allowed in view of the time restriction of 90/365 days (though, in my view, this restriction is not applicable to the facts of this case). At present, since the prosecution complaint is already filed and appellant is facing trial for commission of offence of money laundering, thus, if the conclusion of the trial proceedings results in conviction of the appellant and the properties are released before that, then the investigation and trial proceedings will become infructuous and nugatory, as the government will not be able to confiscate the sa....