The Appellate Tribunal heard an appeal against an order confirming the continuation of provisional attachment of properties. The court noted prima facie grounds to set aside the attachment but adjourned, refusing to pass an order due to the respondent's counsel unavailability.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI
FPA-PMLA-784/LKW/2015 Shri Sushil Katiyar … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the appellant | : Shri Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For the respondent | : Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Adv. For Ms. Vikas Garg, Advocate |
| CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA |
: CHAIRMAN : MEMBER |
ORDER 24.04.2017
FPA-PMLA-784/LKW/2015
The appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated confirming the provisional attachment of t he properties which were attached in this case.
It is submitted that the appellant was discharged from the schedule offences by the by the Special Judge, Lucknow in the case crime no. 64/2012 registered with P.S. Hussain Ganj, Lucknow vide judgment dated 17.03.2015 in case no. 4A/2012
It is admitted position that after the said order for discharge dated 17.03.2015, the respondent preferred a complaint for prosecution of appellant under section 3/4 of the Act before the Special Judge, Lucknow wherein the appellant was summoned for trial vide order dated 30.04.2015 passed in complaint case no. 05/2015.
FPA-PMLA-784/LKW/2015
Page 1 of 2
Against the order of discharge dated 17th March, 2015 from offences in the case crime no. 64/2012, the state had preferred Criminal Revision Petition no. 348/2015 and against the above said order dated 30.04.2012 passed in complaint case no. 05/2015, the appellant had referred a petition under section 482 of CrPC bearing no. 1914 of 2015, both before the hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad bench at Lucknow. The High Court has dismissed the revision petition no. 348/2015 vide order dated 19.02.2016. On the other hand, the petition bearing no. 1914 of 2015 filed under section 482 of CRPC was allowed vide order dated 10th May, 2016 passed by Hon’ble High court of Lucknow by which the summoning order dated 30.04.2015 was quashed.
The appellant preferred application before Special Judge, Lucknow praying for release of his properties. In view of orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the said application is allowed by Special Judge vide order dated 18th February, 2017 for release of the properties.
In the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, prima facie, we are of the view that the impugned order in the above mentioned appeal which confirmed the attachment of the related properties to continue till the pendency of the proceedings before the competent criminal court, does not survive. However, as the main counsel for the respondent is not available due to personal reasons, order in the case are not passed today.
List the appeal on 1st May, 2017.
No further adjournment would be granted.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Kaushal Srivastava)
Member
New Delhi, 24th April, 2017 ‘s’
FPA-PMLA-784/LKW/2015
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order confirming the provisional attachment of properties survives prima facie in light of subsequent proceedings.
Whether the appeal should be decided in the absence of the main counsel for the respondent.
Shri Sushil Katiyar
The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow
Manmohan Singh
Kaushal Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
