TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforesaid amount has been seized. Secondly, it is also submitted by the appellant that the seizure of aforesaid amount in PS case no. 27 dated 03.02.2016 is illegal. In this regard, the Appellant ought to have moved the concerned Trial Court to get the aforesaid amount released in his favour. Appeal dismissed. - FPA-PMLA-2003/BBS/2017 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2019 - Justice Manmohan Singh Chairman And Shri G. C. Mishra Member For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, Advocate, Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta, Advocate JUDGMENT FPA-PMLA-2003/BBS/2017 The present appeal has been preferred by Sh. Bharat Bhusan Swain, the appellant against the order passed by Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint (O.C.) No. 733/2017 dated 01.09.2017 in Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) 11/2017 dated 29.03.2017 arising out of ECIR/02/BBSZO/2016 dated 03.06.2016. The appellant is Defendant no.4 in the O. C. 2. The appellant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority and passed any of other(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de PS case no. 27/16 u/s 387/120B/34 IPC r/w 25(1-AA)/ 27 of Arms Act against the present appellant and others. Thus, ₹ 12,44,000/- has been made as a proceeds of crime under this PS case no. 27/16. 7. It is also revealed from the record that charge sheets in PS case no 12 dated 30.01.2014 and 27/16 dated 03.02.2016 were filed. The present appellant has been acquitted in PS. Case no. 12 dated 30.01.2014 corresponding to G.R. case no. 199/2014 by ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Asst. Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide judgment dated 24.03.2017 passed in S.T. no. 18/2017 in which there is a direction from the ld. Court to return seized cash, if any. Nowhere in the said judgment there is mention of seizure of ₹ 12,44,000/-. Even the seizure list on which the appellant is heavily relying on has not been exhibited as an evidence for prosecution. It is seen from the copy of the judgment of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Asst. Sessions Judge, Cuttack that the said amount of ₹ 12,44,000/- has never been exhibited as a material object in the case. The appellant has not filed the copy of the charge sheet filed in connection with PS Case no. 12 dated 30.01.2014 show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from his Bank Account prior to the search action. But, he could not give the details of the Bank Account from which such cash was withdrawn. It is further seen from the record that the total investments in immovable properties is much more than his net income. 12. The Appellant has filed his written submissions so also the respondent. We have gone through the written submissions of both the parties. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also gone through the material placed on record. In view of the following we do not find any merit in the appeal: (A). The appellant has challenged the P.A.O., O.C. and the Impugned Order inter alia on the ground that the sum of ₹ 12,44,000/- shown as seizure made in the present case by the respondent for the purpose of Provisional Attachment was not seized in the present case and said cash was seized arising out of another FIR vide Chauliaganj PS Case no. 12 dated 30.01.2014 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 199/2014 and that in this FIR dated 30.01.2014 a seizure list dated 01.02.2016 was prepared reflecting therein that the amount of ₹ 12,44,000/- was seized in that case. (B). The second important issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led from the plain paper FIR dated 03.02.2016 and charge sheet in PS case no. 27/2016 that ₹ 12,44,000/- is seized in this case. (G). The appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the amount which was seized from the possession of the appellant was not proceeds of crime or untainted amount as required under Section 24 of the PML Act. Instead of discharging their burden, the appellant concentrated his arguments on the technical point that the said amount was seized in PS Case no. 12 dated 30.01.2014 in which he has already been acquitted and direction has been issued to release the aforesaid amount. (H). The appellant has relied on following judgments in his written submission in support of his contention that there are no reasons to believe in attaching the aforesaid amount and confirmation of the same by the Adjudicating Authority. The judgments cited are: (i) Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9 SCC. (ii) Calcutta Discount Company Vs. ITO (1961) 2 SCR 241. (iii) Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Customs, (2015) 11 SCC 628 (para15). (iv) M. P. Industries Ltd. Vs. ITO (1970) 2 SCC 32. (v) ITO V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
