TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 741
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in the Original Complaint No. 1222/2019 (OC). The Provisional Attachment Order No. 04/2019 dated 24.10.2019 (PAO) issued in ECIR No. ECIR/06/BSZO/2014 dated 12.12.2014 was confirmed vide the Impugned Order. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Appellant Company is a partnership firm registered before the Registrar of Firms, Kolkata, West Bengal vide Registration No. 176559 dated 16.10.2007 and is in the legitimate business of mining of Iron Ore and Manganese Ore in Odisha since 1955 under a valid license/lease granted by the Government of Odisha/Government of India and the said license/lease has been renewed from time to time. The Respondent post searches and seizures on 09.07.2015, issued letters to the banks of the Appellants on 14.07.2015 and 15.07.2015 directing them to freeze the Current Accounts/FDs of the Appellant. In pursuance of the letters dated 14.07.2015 and 15.07.2015 issued by the Enforcement Directorate, the operation of Current Accounts and FDs were restricted by the bank Authorities. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that after searches ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inuation of freezing of Current Accounts and FDs from the Ld. AA by way of OA under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of PMLA. The retention of frozen property beyond 180 days without permission of the Ld. AA is a nullity and an absolute illegality which cannot be rectified or cured by passing a PAO. Thus, PAO dated 24.10.2019 and the impugned order dated 25.09.2020 are contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions of PMLA and liable to be quashed and set aside. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Ld. AA has failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant has never been in possession of the alleged PoC. It was submitted that the Ld. AA has confirmed the PAO through the Impugned Order passed in a mechanical manner ignoring the pleadings of the Appellant and without recording reasons as mandated in law. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants relied upon the statements of various witnesses to support his contentions, which were as follows: a. Shri Mofazzalur Rahman vide his statements dated 27.08.2015 and 23.09.2015 stated inter-alia that he was the Joint Managing Partner of M/s Serajuddin & Co., which has two mining leases of Balda Iron Block and Guruda Mangan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;ble Supreme Court and therefore, cannot be accused of generating proceeds of crime under PMLA. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the actual production during 24.08.2000 to 10.11.2009 was 22,586 MT as evident from the response dated 04.03.2019 provided by the Office of Regional Controller of Mines, Bhubaneshwar, thus, the finding of the Respondent that the total production was 8,29,447 MT is incorrect. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants contended that there was no excess production of Iron Ore during 2000-2003 and 2005-2006, as admitted by the Respondent. Also, the alleged excess production during 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2006-2009 is without any basis. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants further submitted that the production quantity was approved by the IBM, therefore, there was no question of excess production as calculated to be Rs. 6,92,98,143.16 by the Respondent. 7. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants further argued that the Appeal Nos. FPA-PMLA-1192/BBS/2016 filed by M/s. Serajuddin & Co., FPA-PMLA-1193/BBS/2016 filed by M/s. Yazdani International Pvt. Ltd., FPA-PMLA-1194/BBS/2016 filed by Shri Seraj Yusha, Shri Meraj Yousha & Ors. and FPA-PMLA-1195/BBS/2016 filed by Shri ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act is very exhaustive and elaborate. It speaks of any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person. It is no doubt true that the complaint has been made by the respondent only in pursuant to the scheduled offence. However, the object, rationale and the scope enshrined under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, being a special statute is distinct and different from the one enshrined under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Though the facts may be overlapping the nature of investigation differs. Therefore, it cannot be stated that a mere closure by the Central Bureau of Investigation would provide a death knell to the proceedings of the respondent. In a given case, the complaint may emanate from a registration of a case involving scheduled offence. But the fate of the investigation in the said scheduled offence cannot have bearing to the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Section 2(u) of the Act merely speaks of a criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Therefore, we are concerned with the criminal activity qua a scheduled offence. Section 3 deals with the offence on money laundering. On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he total Proceeds of Crime (POC) were Rs. 785,67,15,919/- as per 'Table-9' of the Original Complaint. Since, the criminal activity had taken place during different points of time, it was not possible to trace the POC derived or obtained at the time of commission of the scheduled offence. Hence, the above said amount of Rs. 622,62,05,200/- was attached provisionally, being the value thereof/equivalent amount of the POC. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that M/s Serajuddin & Co. submitted a letter no. S & CO/545/17-18 dated 13.11.2017 wherewith the lessee submitted the Demand Notice No. 4124/Mines dated 02.09.2017 issued by the Deputy Director of Mines, Joda Circle, District Keonjhar, Odisha to M/s Serajuddin & Co. in consonance with the Judgment dated 02.08.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 114 of 2014. In reply to the aforementioned letters all dated 14.07.2015, Axis Bank vide e-mail dated 16.07.2015 provided details of 23 active accounts held by M/s Serajuddin & Co. wherein the total balance amount was Rs. 221,74,38,763/-. In the reply, Kotak Mahindra Bank vide e-mail dated 14.07.2015 provided details of six TD accounts wherein total balance amount was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner as well as the consequential proceedings against him stand quashed." The Judgment dated 23.09.2022 of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court, Cuttack in CRLMC No. 2272 of 2021 in the matter relating to the challenge to the Charge-Sheet No. 4 dated 30.03.2012 between Md. Mofazzalur Rahman & Another (Md. Intekhab Alam) vs. State of Odisha (Vigilance) states the following in the concluding Paragraphs 18 and 19: "18. In view of the well settled principle of law, as apparent from the decisions quoted above, the prosecution launched against the petitioners is found to be legally not sustainable, although the petitioners are admittedly Partners of the Lessee-company. Further, for the discussion made hereinbefore, the offence of criminal conspiracy and other offences as alleged, are found to be not made out against the petitioners, especially when there is no specific allegation in that regard against them either as an individual or a partner of the Lessee company. Hence, this Court finds merit in the contention of the petitioners that continuance of the criminal proceeding against them will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The CRLMC, therefore, deserves to be a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stage of cognizance. 32. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioners, Md. Intekhab Alam and another are hereby quashed. 33. However, the proceedings against the company/firm shall continue, and the Enforcement Directorate is free to proceed in accordance with law regarding any further investigation or prosecution of the company/firm under PMLA by strictly complying the procedural safeguard provided under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and any other applicable laws. 34. The CRLMC is partly allowed." 12. Perusal of the Judgments of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court brings out that in both Charge-Sheet No. 3 and Charge-Sheet No. 4 as mentioned afore, the criminal proceedings initiated for the offences including the scheduled offences against Shri Md. Mofazzalur Rahman were quashed. It is also clear that in Charge-Sheet No. 4 the criminal proceedings initiated for the offences including the scheduled offences against Md. Intekhab Alam were also quashed. Both these Judgments also state that the consequential proceedings have been quashed. The Judgment dated 18.07.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa quashes the money laundering pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Prosecution Complaint within the period of 90 days of passing the Order of freezing/seizure/retention/ attachment. Therefore, passing of the Order dated 06.05.2019 by this Tribunal precludes neither the possibility of making an attachment subsequently, nor to uphold the attachment merely on this ground that the Freezing Order had been set aside. 14. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants has also referred to this Tribunal Order dated 03.10.2023, which allowed the Appeal No. FPA-PMLA-3782/BBS/2020 filed by Shri Md. Mofazzalur Rahman. The Order of the Tribunal was passed in the light of the scheduled offences having been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa qua Shri Md. Mofazzalur Rahman in its Judgments dated 23.09.2022. As discussed in the aforementioned Paragraph 12, the scheduled offences qua Shri Md. Mofazzalur Rahman were quashed by the said Judgments. It was further clarified by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in its Judgment dated 18.07.2025 that further necessary action under PMLA could continue against M/s. Serajuddin & Co. It is also clear that in the aforementioned Judgments the cases of the three individual Appellants herein, were not under consideration. We therefor....