TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lenged the said order before the High Court and the appeal filed by the bank is pending. It is an admitted position that the Bank is not a party in the present proceedings. Therefore, in case the order was to be challenged, it was to be challenged by the ED or the State. The same has not happened. Thus, attachment of two properties lapses under the operation of law. The impugned order is set-aside by allowing the appeal. - MP-PMLA-423/HYD/2013 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-466/HYD/2013, MP-PMLA-407/HYD/2013 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-461/HYD/2013 - - - Dated:- 26-8-2019 - Justice Manmohan Singh Chairman For the Appellants : Mr. G. Kiran Kumar, Advocate, Mr. K. S. Rama Rao, Advocate, Mr. K.L.B. Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Shilpi Satyap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sections 48 and 49 of PMLA, read with Notification GSR441 (E) dated 01.07.2005, vide ECIR No. 09/HZO/2009. 4. A perusal of the Charge-sheet dated 26.06.2010 filed by the said Inspector of Police in the Court of the Hon ble XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh reveals the role played by accused persons (1) Geddeda Veera Venkata Satya Vara Prasad (G.V.V.S. Vara Prasad), (2) Ankem Rammohan Rao, (3) Maddala Ramesh, (4) Pasha @ Satyanarayana, (5) Vaddi Mohan Prakash @ Srinivasa Rao, (6) Katneni Sarath Babu, (7) Gutta Prasad, and (8) Katneni Satyendra Prasad in the commission of the scheduled offences within the meaning of Section 2(1)(y) of the PMLA, 2002. 5. It is observed from the Charge-sheet filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the case on behalf of respondent while passing the Provisional Attachment Order dated bearing No.02/2012 dated 06.07.2012 in ECIR No. 09/HZO/2009, purportedly under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, where two immovable properties belong to S/Shri Katneni Sarat Babu and Mandala Ramesh (Appellants) were provisionally attached. The said Joint Director thereupon filed a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority, purportedly under Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, against two Defendants, including the Appellants herein. 8. Upon receiving the complaint, and purportedly on the very same day, the Adjudicating Authority issued Notices, purportedly pursuant to Section 8(1) of the Prevent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that he participated directly in the offence. As per the evidence of PW2 has given the clearance for passing of Ex.P30 Cheque. No incriminating material collected to prove the role of A4 and A8. 52. In view of the above circumstances, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the case against accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused are entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt. 53. In the result, the accused A1, A3, A5 to A8 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under Sections 409, 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted as per the provisions Under Sections 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after the expiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operties involved in moneylaundering and confiscated by the Central Government: Provided that where a notice under this sub-section specifies any property as being held by a person on behalf of any other person, a copy of such notice shall also be served upon such other person: Provided further that where such property is held jointly by more than one person, such notice shall be served to all persons holding such property. (2) The Adjudicating Authority shall, after- (a) considering the reply, if any, to the notice issued under sub-section (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 re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... schedule offence, no appeal has been filed either by the State or ED as admitted by the counsel for the respondent. 15. Admittedly, the State as well as the respondent has not challenged the acquittal order before any Court even after expiry of 3 years. The counsel for the respondent has merely stated that the Bank was cheated by the appellants as well as the main accused, the Bank has challenged the said order before the High Court and the appeal filed by the bank is pending. It is an admitted position that the Bank is not a party in the present proceedings. Therefore, in case the order was to be challenged, it was to be challenged by the ED or the State. The same has not happened. 16. Thus, attachment of two properties lapses under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
