Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Directorate Of Enforcement Th. ... vs Gurjeet Kour on 20 May, 2022
Sr. No. 8
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
MA No. 89/2019
CM No. 9649/2019
Directorate of Enforcement Th. Deputy .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Director
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, ASGI.
Vs
Gurjeet Kour ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gagan Deep Sharma, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
20.05.2022
(Open Court)
Per:-Thakur-J
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated
22.08.2019 passed by the appellate-Tribunal for Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "PMLA Act"), whereby
the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent against the
order dated 18.07.2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Briefly stated the material facts are as under:-
2. An FIR came to be registered, in which it was alleged that a
Jammu based finance company, namely, Dutta Financiers and few other
finance companies run by S. Gurbachan Singh Dutta and his son, namely,
S. Harpal Singh Dutta had cheated about 1000 depositors of District
Jammu, Kathua, Samba, Poonch, Baramula and Srinagar, who had
deposited their hard earned money in the finance company. The crime
branch of the police in that regard filed first charge-sheet on 19.07.2013
and supplementary charge-sheet on 12.03.2014 under Sections 420, 467
and 120-B RPC. It appears that the subsequently the offences under
Sections 420, 467 and 120-B RPC were covered under Schedule of offences
under the PMLA Act, hence the case was registered on 03.01.2014 under
the PMLA Act.
3. The facts as they emerge from the record are that there was an
agreement to sell dated 14.05.2016 executed between the husband of the
respondent, namely, S. Charanjeet Singh and Sh. S. Harpal Singh Dutta in
regard to sale of 18 marlas of land falling under Khasra No. 112 min situate
at Digiana, Jammu at the rate of Rs. 67,500/- per marla. It appears that
there was an entry made on the reverse of the documents seized, which
would reflect that S. Charanjeet Singh has received Rs. 10,45,000/- in cash
and Rs. 1,20,000/- in regard to sale of land in favour of S. Harpal Singh.
The total amount, thus, received was Rs. 11,65,000/-. This was treated as
the alleged proceeds of crime and with a view to trace and locate the same,
a search was conducted at the office of S. Charanjeet Singh on 16.03.2018,
resulting in recovery and seizure of documents, which included FDR for an
amount of Rs. 12.00 lacs bearing Account No. 37305237363 dated
16.12.2017 in the name of the respondent, namely, Smt. Gurjeet Kour.
Apart from this, the husband of the respondent, namely, S.
Charanjeet Singh appears to have offered an FDR dated 20.03.2018 for Rs.
10,45,000/- to the appellant herein for attachment, which it is admitted has
already been attached under Attachment order dated 28.03.2018.
The seizure of the FDR for Rs. 12.00 lacs is over and above the
amount of Rs. 10,45,000/-, which stands attached by the Directorate of
Enforcement.
4. Being aggrieved of the seizure by the Directorate of
Enforcement, an OA was preferred by the respondent before the
Adjudicating Authority, which was rejected, which led to the filing of the
appeal before the appellate-Tribunal under the PMLA Act, which vide order
dated 22.08.2019 allowed the appeal and directed the release of the FDR
for an amount of Rs. 12.00 lacs in favour of the respondent. The basis for
allowing the appeal was two-fold:-
Firstly, it was held that as per the mandatory provisions of the
PMLA Act, the prosecution complaint was to be filed within 90 days, which
was not done and failure whereof, the order of seizure would lapse and
secondly, it was held that the Directorate of Enforcement has already
secured the alleged amount of Rs. 10,45,000/- as proceeds of crime that
was suspected to have been travelled into the hands of Sh. S. Charanjeet
Singh. It was held that there was no justification for the respondent to
further retain the amount belonging to the appellant.
5. We have gone through the order impugned and feel that the
view expressed by the appellate authority is perfectly legal and justified in
the facts and circumstances of the case. The only amount, which was
required to be secured as proceeds of crime was an amount of
Rs. 11,65,000, out of which an amount of Rs. 10,45,000/- has already
been attached, which appears to be a voluntary act on the part of
S. Charanjeet Singh. Therefore, we do not find it a fit case for interference,
as the view expressed by the appellate-Tribunal is perfectly legal.
6. Be that as it may, the appeal is found to be bereft of merit and
the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CM.
(Rahul Bharti) (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
Judge Judge
Jammu
20.05.2022
Ram Krishan
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
