TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill the trial in the prosecution complaint before the Special Court is over as it may take number of years. The said proceedings are to be continued even otherwise. The complainant in the criminal case is the Bank who is victim. Had the Bank not filed a criminal complaint, perhaps the conspiracy might not have been discovered. Further if in a case like the present if the security of the Bank, is treated as proceeds of crime and is confiscated under the Act, in future, no Bank in such circumstances would make a complaint to the authorities. The trial in the prosecution complaint would take number of years. The victim cannot wait for such a long period of time, although after trial and final determination, the victim is entitled to recover the amount by selling immovable properties u/s 8(8) of the Act. The intention of the Act could not have been to affect a third person or an innocent person as is sought to be done in the instant case. If the impugned order is correct, it would be a patently absurd situation that the only substantial securities of the bank are not available for the benefit of Bank but are vested in the Central Government as proceeds of crime. Such a result doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f facts are that on complaint of Chief Vigilance Officer; Syndicate Bank, Corporate Office, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore, regarding fraudulent transactions in the sanction and dispersal of Synd Jaikisan Loan and other credit facility, CBI registered a case on 15.04.2009 against Shri H.M. Swamy, the then Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank, Mandya Branch, Distt. Mandya, Shri Asdulla Khan, of Gandhi Nagar, Mandya and others for the offences punishable under sections 120-B read with 409, 420, 467, 471 IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act 1988. 3.1. On completion of the investigation CBI, BS FC Bangalore, filed a charge sheet under section 173 Cr. PC against Shri H.M. Swamy, Ashadulla Khan, P.K. Vitthaldas, Shri Ayub Pasha, Shri Najamodeen, Smt. Ayesha Najam, Smt Naseemunnissa, and Smt. Nasreen Taj, for the offences punishable under section 120B read with 420 and section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the PC Act and substantive offence under section 420 IPC against Shri Ashadulla Khan and others. 3.2 The case was based on the allegation that Sh. H.M. Swamy, the then Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Mandya Branch, Mandya, and Sh. P.K. Vitthal Das, the then Manager, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd have spent a sum of ₹ 18 lakhs towards purchase of machinery from out of the money received from Syndicate Bank, Ashok Nagar, Mandya. 3.5 In his further statement dated 27.02.2012 it is further stated that, in addition to the investments made towards construction of house in the name of Smt. Ayesha Najam and jnvestments towards construction of M/s Faraah Industry in the name of Smt. Ayesha Najam and purchase of dry and wet land in the name of Smt Nasreen Taj at Pandavapura, he had made 'investment of ₹ 35 Lakhs in M/s GAD Industries, No. 50-D, KIADB Industrial Area, Tubinakere, Mandya from the money so derived from Syndicate Bank, Mandya towards construction of the said M/s GAD Industries held in the name of his mother-in-law Smt. Zareen Taj. He has further stated that he has made all the payments in cash only towards civil construction of the factory and the investment in the said factory is from out of the money derived from Syndicate bank, Ashoknagar Branch, Mandya and has also informed that the market-value for M/s GAD industries excluding the land value is not less than ₹ 50 lakhs. Further Smt. Zareen Taj, Proprietor of M/s GAD Industries, vide her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that Properties at Sl. No. 51/7, 51/6, 51/9, 51/2, 51/8 52/1; at Panduvapura taluk, Kasab Hobli Doddabyadrahalli, Mandya District was bought by-her husband Shri. Asadulla Khan in her name from out of the money derived from Syndicate Bank. 4. It is evident from the various statements recorded u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002 that Shri Asadulla Khan and his wives have defaulted in making repayment to the Syndicate Bank and thereby resulted in the loss to the Bank. Shri Asadulla Khan himself and his wives have confirmed to the fact that the properties were purchased from out of the money so derived from Syndicate Bank and also failed to submit the detail of his source of income in purchasing the properties from any other source. Shri Asadulla Khan and others have failed to produce any legitimate source of income till date having given several. opportunities for production of source of income. 5. It is not denied by the appellants as well as the respondent no. 1 as all these witnesses admitted the facts that Defendant No. 1 has received a bank loan from Syndicate Bank, Mandya Branch, Mandya and invested the said money for construction of house and industry at Mandya for which there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 A house constructed by Shri Asadulla Khan at the cost of ₹ 1 crore during the year 2009 at the house site/plot measuring 37ft X 60ft property municipal Khata No. D4/418/2481 at 5 th Cross, Gandhinagar, Mandya City, Mandya purchased vide Registration No. 5047 registered at Sub-registrar, Mandya dated 08-08-2006. Smt. Ayesha Najam Wife of Mr. Asadulla Khan ₹ 1,00,00,000/- 2 A factory M/s Faara Industries constructed by Shri Asadull Khan at No. 163, 5 th Cross, Gandhinagar, Mandya. The factory plot was allotted by KIADB (The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board) vide Possession Certificate No. IADB/MYS/941/1846/99- 2000 dated 8-11-1999 measuring 53.75 Mts X 150.00 Mtrs. Industrial Property bearing site No. 916, F Block, Vivekananda Nagar Layout, Mandya City Smt. Ayesha Najam, wife of Mr. Asadulla Khan ₹ 1,00,00,000/- 3 Agricultural land measuring 12 Guntas at Sy. No. 51/7, and 1 acre at Sy. No. 51/6 at Panduvapura taluk, Kasab Hobli, Doddabyadrahalli, Mandya Dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent in the appeals, were filed who stated that the Syndicate Bank was not a party in the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority. No notice was issued by the Adjudicating Authority to the Syndicate Bank to appear before it and make its submissions or reply to the notice. The impugned proceedings have been taken against seven properties which have been listed in para 1 of the impugned order dated 27.07.2012. These properties belong to one Asadulla Khan, his two wives Smt. Nasreen Taj, Ayesha Najam and mother of Smt. Nasreen Taj namely Smt. Zareen Taj. 10. The details with respect to these 7 properties are as follows: (i) House bearing Municipal Khata No. D4/418/2481, 5 th Cross, Gandhinagar, Mandya City, Mandya. The site of this property was purchased by Smt. Ayesha Najam under registered sale deed dated 08.08.2006, prior to construction. Thereafter Smt. Ayesha Najam was granted a loan of ₹ 25 lacs on 25.08.2006 against the security of the site and the proposed construction. In this respect Ayesha Najam created a mortgage with the Syndicate Bank on 25.08.2006 before availing the loan. Thereafter another loan of ₹ 60 lacs was granted to Ayesha Najam on 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries through its proprietor availed a loan of ₹ 18 lacs on 06.12.2006 from Syndicate Bank for purchase of concrete block making machinery. Said M/s Faara Industries also availed another loan of ₹ 32 lacs on 21.09.2007 from Syndicate Bank for setting up of Hollow Brick Manufacturing Unit. The Industrial Property situated at S.No. 23, Plot no. 3-B-1 was mortgaged by way of collateral security to the Bank on 06.12.2006 against the loan of ₹ 18 lacs granted to M/s Faara Industries. The other property i.e. Industrial Property bearing site No. 916, F Block, Vivekananda Nagar Layout, Mandya City was mortgaged by way of collateral security with the Syndicate Bank by M/s Faara Industries on 21.09.2007 against the loan of ₹ 32 lacs mentioned above. Both the properties were acquired by Ms. Ayesa Nazam in 1999 and 2003 having been acquired prior to the grant of the loan by the Syndicate Bank, and having been mortgaged to the Bank thereafter the assumption that the properties are from the proceeds of a crime is misconceived and wrong. Both the above loan accounts were rendered NPAs on 30.06.2009. Therefore, the Authorised Officer of the Bank in exercise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties described as item no. 8(iii) above. Both the properties were acquired by Ms. Nasreen Taj in January, 2008 by the Syndicate Bank, and having been mortgaged with the Bank thereafter the assumption that the properties are from the proceeds of a crime is misconceived and wrong. 12. Agricultural lands Survey No. 51/9, Dodda Byadarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk Mandya and portion of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 51/2, at Pandavapura Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, Dodda Byadarahalli Village, Mandya District were acquired by Nasreen Taj on 10.01.2008/22.01.2008. Mrs. Nasreen Taj availed a farm development loan of ₹ 40 lacs on 23.06.2008 and another farm loan ₹ 15 lacs on 23.06.2008. Both the above loans were granted by the Syndicate Bank against the mortgage of the properties described as item no. 8(iv) above. Both the properties were acquired by Ms. Nasreen Taj in January 2008 having been acquired prior to the grant of the loan on 23.06.2008 by the Syndicate Bank, and having been mortgaged with the Bank thereafter the assumption that the properties are from the proceeds of a crime is misconceived and wrong. Agricultural land Survey No. 51/8, Dodda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also filed a recovery application in O.A. No. 686/2010 in the Debt Recovery Tribunal Bangalore against the borrower and the guarantor for recovery of amount due on the security of this property. This OA is at the stage of final arguments and is likely to be decided soon. But the proceedings of the recovery application is stayed by the Writ Petition and for which the Bank has filed its objections opposing the writ petition and also application to vacate stay on 04.01.2014. The Hon ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore adjourned the Writ Petition to 17.01.2014 for considering the objection and application for vacate the stay, while recording the objection filed by the Bank. 14. It is stated on behalf of Syndicate Bank that the impugned order shows that the Adjudicating Authority has come to a prima face conclusion that all the above properties are proceeds of money laundering subject to action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The authority appears to have proceeded on the basis that the CBI has registered a case of criminal conspiracy and under the Prevention of Corruption Act against two Bank officials of Syndicate Bank and Asadulla Khan and his family members all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We may point out that the aspect of overriding effect between the two special Act i.e. PMLA, 2002 and SARFAESI Act has been widely discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Solidaire India Ltd. V/s. Fair Growth Financial Services Ltd. Ors. Wherein after discussion in para 7-11 it was held that later enactment would prevail with a non-obstante clause. Paras 7-11 reads as under:- 7. Coming to the second question, there is no doubt that the 1985 Act is a special Act. Section 32(1) of the said Act reads as follows: 32. Effect of the Act on other laws.-(1) The provisions of this Act and of any rules or schemes made there under shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law except the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 973) and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (33 of 1976) for the time being in force or in the Memorandum or Articles of Association of an industrial company or in any other instrument having effect by virtue of any /law other than this Act. 8. The effect of this provision is that the said Act will have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Had the Legislature wanted to exclude the provisions of the Sick Companies Act from the ambit of the said Act, the Legislature would have specifically so provided. The fact that the Legislature did not specifically so provide necessarily means that the Legislature intended that the provisions of the said Act were to prevail even over the provisions of the Sick Companies Act. Under Section 3 of the 1992 Act, all properly of notified persons is to stand attached. Under Section 3(4), it is only the Special Court which can give directions to the Custodian in respect of property of the notified party. Similarly, under Section 11(1), the Special Court can give directions regarding property of a notified party. Under Section 11(2), the Special Court is to distribute the assets of the notified party in the manner set out thereunder. Monies payable to the notified parties are assets of the notified party and are, therefore, assets which stand attached. These are assets which have to be collected by the Special Court for the purposes of distribution under Section 11(2). The distribution can only take place provided the assets are first collected. The whole aim of these provisions is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 wherein after giving an overriding effect to the 1993 Act it is specifically provided that the said Act will be in addition to and not in derogation of a number of other Acts including the 198.5 Act. Similarly under Section 32 of the 1985 Act the applicability of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act is not excluded. It is clear that in the instant case there was no intention of the legislature to permit the 1985 Act to apply, notwithstanding the fact that proceedings in respect of a company may be going on before the BIFR. The 1992 Act is to have an overriding effect notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in another Act. The similar view was taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of Bhoruka Steel Ltd. Vs. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. The judgment rendered on 09.02.2016 reported in 1997 (89) company cases 547 (BOM) para 15 of the said judgment read as under: 15. To be noted that in both the judgments, relied upon by counsel, the Supreme Court has held that generally where there are two special statues, which contain non-obstante clauses, the later statute m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , shall have priority and shall be paid in priority over all other debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government, State Government or local authority. Explanation. for the purposes of this section, it is hereby clarified that on or after the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in cases where insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings are pending in respect of secured assets of the borrower, priority to secured creditors in payment of debt shall be subject to the provisions of that Code. 3 There is, thus, no doubt that the rights of a secured creditor to realize secured debts due and payable by sale of assets over which security interest is created, would have priority over all debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government, State Government or Local Authority. This section introduced in the Central Act is with notwithstanding clause and has come into force from 01.09.2016 4 The law having now come into force, naturally it would govern the rights of the parties in respect of even a lis pending. 5 The aforesaid would, thus, answer qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cquisition of property in para 103. The same read as under:- 103. Since proceeds of crime is defined to include the value of any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, where a person satisfies the adjudicating authority by relevant material and evidence having a probative value that his acquisition is bona fide, legitimate and for fair market value paid therefor, the adjudicating authority must carefully consider the material and evidence on record (including the Reply furnished by a noticee in response to a notice issue under Section 8(1) and the material or evidence furnished along therewith to establish his earnings, assets or means to justify the bona fides in the acquisition of the property); and if satisfied as to the bona fide acquisition of the property, relieve such property from provisional attachment by declining to pass an order of confirmation of the provisional attachment; either in respect of the whole or such part of the property provisionally attached in respect whereof bona fide acquisition by a person is established, at the stage of the section 8(2) process 41. The Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up the perusal of the complaint and having no grievance against them in any other proceeding whether civil or criminal on the same set of issues. 70. There is no doubt that the trial has been proceeding for offences for the last about 20 years ago. The dispute between the petitioner and complainant Bank 33 years old. A long time has in fact been elapsed since the alleged commission of offences. Still the trial continues. The present petition is maintainable as the same has been filed also on additional grounds and circumstances. No useful purpose would be served if such oppressive trial may continue for many more years. Thus, ends of justice are served by quashing such a proceeding, as the parties cannot be allowed to go through the rigmarole of criminal prosecution for long numbers of years in a matter, it is doubtful in the mind of the Court in whose favour it would be decided. 71. In view of above mentioned reasons, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners, arising out of R.C. No. 4A/94/SIU(X) dated 23rd May, 1994, titled CBI vs. N. Bhojraj Shetty Ors. , being C.C. No.65/11, pending in the Court of Spl. Judge (CBI), Tis Ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any, to the notice issued under subsection (1); (b) hearing the aggrieved person and the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf, and (c)taking into account all relevant materials placed on record before him, by an order, record a finding whether all or any of the properties referred to in the notice issued under sub-section (1) are involved in money-laundering: Provided that if the property is claimed by a person, other than a person to whom the notice had been issued, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money-laundering, section 58 B or sub-section (2 A) of section 60 by the Adjudicating Authority (4) Where the provisional order of attach 56. There are judicial pronouncements whereby it has been laid down that the innocent parties can approach the Adjudicating Authority for release of property by showing their bonafides in their dealings with the property. In the case of Sushil Kumar Katiyar (Appellants) Vs UOI and Ors. (Respondents) MANU/UP/0777/2016 decided on 10.05.2016 by Allahabad High Court, it has been observed by the Ld. Single Judge after noticing the judgment of Karnat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involvement does not arise as he is third party, then the Tribunal/ Adjudicating Authority can consider the said plea depending upon whether there exist bona fide in the said plea or not and proceed to adjudicate the plea of innocence of the said party. 57. This is due to the reason that Section 8 allows the Adjudicating Authority to only retain the properties which are involved in money laundering which means as to whether properties attached are involved in money laundering or not is a pre-condition prior to confirming or attachment by Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, at that time, if the plea is raised that the party whose property is attached is innocent or is without knowledge of any such transaction with respect to money laundering, then the Tribunal can consider the said plea and proceed to release the said property out of the properties by holding that the said property is not involved in money laundering. 58. For the purposes of determining whether the property is involved in money laundering, the Court may consider the ingredients of Section 3 which define offence of money laundering. The aspect of knowledge or involvement has been discussed by Ld. Single Jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he offences is fastened either on the ground of intention or knowledge or reason to believe . We are now concerned with the expressions knowledge and reason to believe . Knowledge is an awareness on the part of the person concerned indicating his state of mind. Reason to believe is another facet of the state of mind. Reason to believe is not the same thing as suspicion or doubt and mere seeing also cannot be equated to believing. Reason to believe is a higher level of state of mind. Likewise knowledge will be slightly on a higher plane than reason to believe . A person can be supposed to know where there is a direct appeal to his senses and a person is presumed to have a reason to believe if he has sufficient cause to believe the same. The same test therefore applies in the instant case where there is absolutely no material or circumstantial evidence whatsoever, oral or documentary, to show that any of the petitioners, 'Knowingly', assisted or was a party to, any offence. C. Actually involved: Actually involved would mean actually involved into any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and thus scheduled offence, inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis of mere suspicion when the element of mens rea or knowledge is missing. 60. Similar principle has been laid down by Chennai High Court in the case of C. Chellamuthu (Appellants) Vs The Deputy Director, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Directorate of Enforcement (Respondent) MANU/TN/4087/2015 decided on 14.10.2015, relevant portion of which are reproduced below:- 20. The said sections read as follows:-- 23. Presumption in inter-connected transactions Where money-laundering involves two or more interconnected transactions and one or more such transactions is or are proved to be involved in money-laundering, then for the purposes of adjudication or confiscation (under section 8 or for the trial of the money-laundering offence, it shall unless otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court), be presumed that the remaining transactions form part of such inter-connected transaction. 24. Burden of proof In any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime under this Act, (a) in the case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under Section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellants to ascertain the genuineness of the same and whether the money deposited came from genuine purchasers or from the persons involved in fraud and Money Laundering. The respondent does not allege that Appellants are Benamies of G. Srinivasan or no sale consideration passed to the vendor. 23. Considering the materials on record and judgments reported in MANU/MH/1011/2010: 2010 (5)Bom CR 625 [supra] and : [2011] 164 Comp Cas 146(AP) [supra], I hold that appellants have rebutted the presumption that the property in question is proceeds of crime. The respondent failed to prove any nexus or link of Appellants with G. Srinivasanand his benamies. Once a person proves that his purchase is genuine and the property in his hand is untainted property, the only course open to the respondent is to attach sale proceeds in the hands of vendor of the appellants and not the property in the hands of genuine legitimate bona fide purchaser without knowledge. 24. Before the Adjudicating Authority it was admitted by complainant that appellants had no knowledge that properties in the hands of their vendor was proceeds of crime. It was also not disputed by complainant that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24. It is an admitted position that the Defendants (D-2 to D-8) had no knowledge that the properties in the hands of the vendor was proceeds of crime. They have also verified the papers relating to these properties before the deal. No point has been raised with regard to the financial capability of these Defendants to buy these properties. However, the Bombay High Court decision in Radha Mohan Lakhotia has been pressed into service to make out a plea that the properties could be attached in such circumstances under the PMLA. Provisional attachment was sought to be continued only based on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Radha Mohan Lakhotia's case. 25. A reading of paragraphs 21 to 24 clearly reveals that both the Adjudicating Authority as well as Appellate Authority failed to properly appreciate the facts and findings in Radha Mohan lakhotia's case. In that case, the Department had placed substantial and acceptable facts to prove that the property in the hands of third party was proceeds of crime. It is pertinent to note that in Mr. Radha Mohan Lokatia's case, Department had proved the nexus and link between the person possessing the property and person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors. The money advanced is not the money of the manager. The Bank has become the victim in the matter. The contract of loan is a legal contract which is enforceable in law. There is no connection between contract of loan between the bank and borrower and the conspiracy. The fact that the bank was induced into entering into a contract of loan with the borrower. The bank is entitled to recover the amount. Thus, right in so that the bank has taken the necessary steps thereof if borrower conspiring in the matter cannot impact the validity of the loan contract. 18. The impugned confirmation order purports to consider the entire case in one paragraph of the order. After narrating the facts, in para 16 of the order the Adjudicating Authority (AA) simply records that the material on record is sufficient to conclude that properties attached vide provisional attachment order have been acquired out of the proceeds of crime by the appellants. The impugned order does not disclose any reasoning. There is no reasoning to show as to how the attached properties are the proceeds of crime. The impugned order suffers from a fundamental error. There is no understanding by the Adjudicating Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied its mind to the requirements of Sections 5 and 8 of the Act. Under Section 5(1) for provisional attachment the Director must have reason to believe, which reason he has to record in writing, on the basis of material that (a) any person is in possession of any proceeds of crime and (b) proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime. At the stage of confirmation, of the provisional attachment, on receipt of any complaint etc. If the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe that any person committed any offence under S. 3, or is in possession of proceeds of crime, he may serve a notice of not less than thirty days on such person calling upon him to indicate the sources of his income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached under sub-section (1) of Section 5, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties should not be declared to be the properties involved in money- laundering and confiscated by the Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be restored to the bank. This should be so as the money in the Bank vault is not tainted or illicit money. To confiscate it under the Act and to vest it in Central Government would be absurd. 28. There is no force in the argument of respondent no. 1 that the bank has not challenged the impugned order by filing the separate appeal. Such argument is unacceptable as the Adjudicating Authority not issued and heard the bank despite of having knowledge. Even, the respondent no. 1 cannot deny the factual position of the merit of the case of the bank. The plea raised by the respondent no. 1 is without any force. Even if the case of the appellants are examined the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 29. In the present cases, it is clear that in order to treat the loan proceeds obtained by the borrower from the Syndicate Bank as the proceeds of crime, as done by the ED and the Adjudicating Authority is not correct. The said money is not illicit or tainted money, nor is the Bank a party to the criminal conspiracy hatched between the manager of the Bank and the borrower. The Bank is an innocent third party who is to be treated as a victim of the crime, if at all. The money recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
