RADHA MOHAN LAKHOTIA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR PMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties at length. By consent, we are finally disposing of the three appeals by this common Judgment and Order as the questions involved therein are overlapping.

(2.) These appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, New Delhi dated November 23, 2009 in appeals filed by the Appellants herein to challenge the order of the Adjudicatory Authority at New Delhi on Complaint Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 of 2007 dated 1st June, 2007, which in turn confirms the provisional attachment order passed by the Deputy Director, Mumbai Zonal Office, Directorate of Enforcement against the Appellants herein under section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2002 for the sake of brevity) read with Notification No. GSR.441(E)dated 1st July, 2005.

(3.) Briefly stated, sometime on 8th December, 2006, a complaint was filed by the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Narcotic Control Bureau(for short "the NCB") bearing Complaint No. NDPS Spl. Case 192/2006. As a consequence of the said complaint, the Deputy Director, incharge of Mumbai Zonal Office, issued the impugned provisional attachment orders against each of the Appellants. He not only took into account the copy of the abovesaid complaint but also statements of bank accounts, report forwarded by the NCB and statements of the Appellants. After considering the material available with him he was of the view that action against the Appellants and others ought to proceed under the provisions of the Act of 2002. For, he had reason to believe that the Appellants herein as well as others were in possession of properties of crime. Further, they had directly or indirectly indulged in money laundering. They had invested the money received by them through the specified Demat account held with Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai. Further, he was of the opinion that the stated properties were likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in such a manner so as to frustrate proceedings relating to confiscation under Chapter III of the Act of 2002. Accordingly, the said Authority in exercise of powers under the Act of 2002 issued separate provisional attachment orders against each of the appellants herein, as also other persons involved in the transaction. Provisional attachment orders served on the respective appellants read thus : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_625_BCR5_20101.htm</FRM> <FRM>JUDGEMENT_625_BCR5_20102.htm</FRM>