9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undred and Twenty Only). 4. It is stated by the appellant that in the year 2004, the Appellant started his regular employment career as an Associate Design Engineer in M/s S.T. Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd. on an annual package of Rs. 4,35,895/- and the appellant has also been investing in various schemes from his savings and he is a regular income tax payee. 5. Admitted fact is that Applicant is not an accused for any of predicate offence. However, his property bearing number no. A-226 ATS Township Noida i.e. Flat No. 31401 which has been allegedly purchased from his savings at ATS Townships Private Limited, at Noida was attached. 6. In the impugned order the said property was not ordered to be released to him despite making payment of 60,90,000/- out of 68,57,0500 till 30.06.2010 to the builder as the Authorities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act vide letter dated 18.02.2015, instructed ATS Township Private Limited at Noida. The builder has not given the possession of the said flat to the Applicant (despite making major part of payment by him) as the respondent has issued communication to the builder. 7. It is the case of the appellant that the property purchased by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said property the valuation of both these floors as per Government Approved Valuer was about Rs. 45,20,000/- and Rs. 44,30,000/-. The above sale transaction has been confirmed by the purchasers of the property and the consideration amount received for the Sale of Second and Third Floor of the above property was invested in a flat No. 03141 ATS Township Pvt. Ltd., Sector no. 104, Noida for approximately Rs. 65.90 lakhs in the year 2010. Copies of all relevant documents are filed. 12. It is not the case of respondent that the Appellant was not the owner of building at 43/5, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi. The second floor of the said building was sold to Shri Virendra Goel, Proprietor M/s Axis Marketing for a consideration amount of Rs. 40 lakhs. The amount of consideration was received in the bank account. The sale was affected by way of registered Sale Deed No. 15787 dated 22.09.2009. Similarly, the third floor of the said building was sold to Shri Neeraj Upadhyay, Proprietor M/s Radhey Shyam Enterprises for a consideration amount of Rs. 48 lakhs. The amount of consideration was received in the bank account. The sale was affected by way of registered Sale Deed No. 15669 dated 17.09.2009. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paras from 6 to 12 reads as under: 6. The Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the scheme of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 does not permit the District Judge to confirm any attachment of the property though the criminal court has not validly convicted and found the accused or the person whose property is sought to be attached as guilty. The Learned counsel submitted that in this case, it was not possible for the criminal court to have convicted or found Ramachandraiah guilty since he expired in 1991 during the trial. In fact, according to the appellants, no application for attachment could have been made under these circumstances. The Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellants may not to be allowed to retain property obtained by ill-gotten means and it was legal for the learned District Judge to have passed the order of attachment in respect of such property which was admittedly the subject matter of the charge-sheet. It has, therefore, become necessary for us to examine whether the property of a person which was merely case of an offence of misappropriation but who died during the pendency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawn if cognizance of the offence has not been taken or there has been an acquittal; the clause is silent as to the effect of abatement of prosecution. It is due to this silence that it is contended by the State Government in this case that the orders of attachment could not only have been continued but could also have been confirmed. It is not possible for us to accept the submission. If the law requires that the orders of attachment should be withdrawn upon acquittal it stands to reason that such orders must be withdrawn when the prosecution abates or cannot result in a conviction due to the death of the accused, whose property is attached. Concept of abatement of a trial could be subsumed in the clause where the final judgment and order of the Criminal Court is one of acquittal. In this context, the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is convicted must be borne in mind and there is no reason to consider this presumption to have vaporized upon the death of an accused. It may be noted that this Court has time and again reiterated the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is convicted. 9. As far as the circumstances of this case are concerned, we find that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperty which the State Government believes the said person to have procured by means of the offences. It is incomprehensible, therefore, that such an application could have been made in regard to a dead person who obviously cannot be said to be ordinarily resident or carrying on business anywhere. There is no legal provision which enables continuance of prosecution upon death of the accused. We must record that the proceedings and the decisions of the courts below are disturbing, to say the least. In the first place, though the accused had died, the trial court proceeded with the trial and recorded a conviction two years after his death. Then, this null and void conviction was used as a basis for making an attachment of his properties before the Sessions Court. Astonishingly, all applications succeeded, the attachment was made absolute and over and above all, the High Court upheld the attachment. 17. In the present case, there was no FIR against the appellant. No charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. He was not charged. He had purchased the property after selling two properties owned by him. The Supreme Court judgment is directly on the issue in hand. 18. In the light of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
