FPA-PMLA-1857/CHN/2017 of Smt. K. Jeyamani v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

ATFP4 Jan 2019FPA-PMLA-1857/CHN/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal listed three matters for directions due to the absence of certified copies of acquittal orders and lack of information regarding appeals. The Registry was directed to list the matters again on 14th January, 2019, for further clarification from the parties.

What the court decided

AI extract

FPA-PMLA-1857/CHN/2017 of Smt. K. Jeyamani v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai — ATFP (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS & PBPT ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

(1) MP-PMLA-3831/CHN/2017 (Misc.) MP-PMLA-3634/CHN/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1856/CHN/2017
Smt. V. Tamil Rajan	… Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai	… Respondent
(2) MP-PMLA-3832/CHN/2017 (Misc.) MP-PMLA-3635/CHN/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1857/CHN/2017
Smt. K. Jeyamani	… Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai	… Respondent
(3) MP-PMLA-3636/CHN/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1858/CHN/2017
Shri V. Kasimayan	… Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai	… Respondent
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHA	IRMAN
ORDER 04.01.2019

¶3

FPA-PMLA-1856/CHN/2017, FPA-PMLA-1857/CHN/2017 & FPAPMLA-1858/CHN/2017

¶4

The appellant has filed the appeal against the order dated 31.05.2107 passed by Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA 2002 in OC No. 685 of 2017 in PAO No.1/2017 dated 30.01.2017 [ECIR No.03/MDSZO/PMLA/2014/Dated 18.07.2014].

¶5

FPA-PMLA-1856-1857-1858/CHN/2017

¶6

Page 1 of 4

¶7

The case of the appellant was that he was implicated in the present FIR(s). The appellant has completed his graduation and thereafter he started cultivation of lands (own land) from 1987 onwards and also other lands taken on lease basis for the 10 years before the initiating the PAO proceedings, and earned good amount of money.

¶8

The appellant is the father of the Defendant No.2 and husband of Defendant No.3. It is submitted that the Respondent/Complainant failed to independently establish the properties mentioned in the complaint are obtained from proceeds of the crime.

¶9

It appears that the Respondent had issued the Provisional Attachment Order No. 1/2017 (PAO) dated 30.01.2017 in file No. ECIR. No.03/MDSZO/PMLA/2014/ dated 18.07.2014 based on the F.I.R NO. 40/2012 which was registered on 07.05.2012 against the 1 & 2 defendants. The police filed the Final Report on 27.10.2012 before the 1^st additional special court, Madurai was acquitted of the appellants on 28.07.2015 on the ground of prosecution has not proved the case. The appellant has also acquitted in following FIRs also as stated in his pleadings: -

¶10

a) FIR No. 219/2003 dated 29.08.2003 was taken up as summary trial Case No. 322 of 2008 before the district munsif cum judicial magistrate court, bodinayakanur, and the Appellant/ defendant no.1 was acquitted by order dated 30.05.2013.

¶11

b) The FIR No. 58/2013 dated 18.06.2013 was taken up as calendar Case No. 245 of 2014 before the 1^st additional special

¶12

FPA-PMLA-1856-1857-1858/CHN/2017

¶13

Page 2 of 4

¶14

court for NDPS cases, Madurai. and the Appellant/ defendant no.1 was acquitted by order dated 15.03.2017.

¶15

C) It is further submitted that the FIR No. 140/2013 dated 18.6.2013 was taken up as Calendar Case No. 52 of 2016 before the Additional District Judge and the Appellant/ defendant No.1 and other persons were acquitted by order dated 1.8.2017.

¶16

It is not disputed by the respondent that the appellants were acquitted by the Trial Court of all case. It is stated by the counsel for the appellants that when the acquittal orders were appraised before the Adjudicating Authority through the reply thereafter this Appellant filed Application for setting aside the attachment of the properties, however, in the impugned order, the attachment was confirmed.

¶17

Thereafter the matter was listed on 15.05.2018 for directions and clarification the following order was passed:-

¶18

“The appellant in the above said matter has been acquitted. We had reserved the order in the above said matter on 30March, 2018 Later on, learned counsel for the respondent has filed the copy of the prosecution complaint, which was registered on 12April, 2018. Both the counsels seek liberty to make their submission in this regard on the next date of hearing. List on 24July, 2018”

¶19

Copy of PMLA complaint has been filed only 12.04.2018 after reserving the order in the present matter on 13.03.2018 i.e. after one month from the date of reserving the order.

¶20

I have gone through entire record of the matter. The learned counsel for the appellant has not filed the certified copy of acquittal order.

¶21

FPA-PMLA-1856-1857-1858/CHN/2017

¶22

Page 3 of 4

¶23

The respondent has also filed to inform as to whether any appeal in acquittal order has been passed or not except certain e-mails dated 18^th October, 2018 informed 9^th November, 2018 were shown the information were sought from the ED as to whether the acquittal order has been challenged by the State in the Higher Court or not. During the course of the argument no opposite response was given except the learned counsel of the appellant states that his client has not received any notice about the appeal filed by the State.

¶24

These information are not provided. The appellant even has not filed the certified copy of the order in favour of the appellant about the acquittal have not been filed. In the absence of said details it is difficult to pass the final order.

¶25

The registry is directed to list these matters for directions on 14^th January, 2019.

¶26

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶27

New Delhi, 4^th January, 2019

¶28

‘D’

¶29

FPA-PMLA-1856-1857-1858/CHN/2017

¶30

Page 4 of 4

FPA-PMLA-1857/CHN/2017 of Smt. K. Jeyamani v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

FPA-PMLA-1857/CHN/2017 of Smt. K. Jeyamani v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases