DEEPAK ASAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The counsel for the petitioners is heard on the question of admission and also on interim relief.

(2.) This petition is under Sec. 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking quashing of provisional attachment order bearing No.02/2025 dtd. 30/1/2025.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the office of respondent No.2 has passed a provision attachment order which is impugned in this petition and quashing of the same is being sought for by the petitioners mainly on the ground that the order passed by the authority is beyond jurisdiction attaching the properties mentioned in Schedule-I, II and III, particularly the properties mentioned in Schedule-C because the said properties do not fall within the definition of "proceeds of crime" as defined under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PMLA Act, 2002'). Shri Datt has further submitted that the order has been passed on 30/1/2025 attaching the properties which are related to the retiral dues of petitioner No.1 and attaching the same is in contravention of Sec. 11 of Pension Act, 1871 and Sec. 13 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the properties are shown to have been attached and scheduled, especially Schedule-III of the impugned order is in fact the asset relating to the amount of retiral dues which is received by petitioner No.1 after his superannuation from service. Shri Datt has submitted that the order of attachment could not have been passed in relation to the said properties because they do not fall within the ambit of "proceeds of crime" and has no connection with the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the properties which are said to have been attached and mentioned in Schedule-III attached with the impugned order have nothing to do with the income said to have been received by the petitioners illegally but it is an amount invested by the petitioners out of the salary that was paid to him by the employer for performing the services and in any manner the same cannot be termed as asset falling within the ambit of "proceeds of crime" and, therefore, it is claimed that the said order in respect of provisional attachment of the properties shown in Schedule-III should be quashed. The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment reported in (2000)6 SCC 338 (State of M.P. Vs. Mohanlal Soni). He has also submitted that the properties shown to have been provisionally attached mentioned in Schedule-III are not of the said period i.e. from October 1995 to 12/12/2010 and, therefore, even otherwise those cannot be considered to be "proceeds of crime" and cannot be proposed to be attached.