Dismissed

FPA-PMLA-2151/PTN/2018 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna

ATFP27 Mar 2019FPA-PMLA-2151/PTN/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal recorded that the initiation of proceedings under PMLA exceeds the 180-day period without a charge sheet, rendering the current retention application of property inadmissible. An adverse inference was drawn regarding the absence of an email affidavit submitted by the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

dismissed the second application in terms of bar under Section 5(1) of the PMLA.

FPA-PMLA-2151/PTN/2018 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta v/s The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2019)

¶1

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

¶2

MP-PMLA-4115/PTN/2018 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-2151/PTN/2018

¶3

Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta … Appellant MP-PMLA-4457/PTN/2018 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-2222/PTN/2018 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna … Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the appellant : Shri Mukesh Anand, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER

¶6

ORDER 27.03.2019

¶7

FPA-PMLA-2151 & 2222/PTN/2018

¶8

This order is passed in continuation with the order dated 3^rd January, 2009, 16^th January, 2009 and 13^th February, 2009. The I.O has filed the affidavit. In para-2 of the affidavit it is stated that e-mail dated 9^th January, 2017 is not available in the file. It appears prima facie that the statement made in the latest affidavit is contrary to the statement made earlier. Under these circumstances adverse inference shall be drawn at the time of passing final order.

¶9

Counsel for the appellant submits that the proceeding initiated by the respondent under section 5(1) of PMLA is otherwise not beyond the period of 180 days even as per the admission made by the respondent. It is also stated by him that no charge sheet has been filed under Section 173 of the Act

¶10

FPA-PMLA-2151 & 2222/PTN/2018

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

against the appellant which is the pre condition of the first proviso of Section 5(1) of the Act. No prosecution complaint is pending against the appellant. He also submitted that the earlier application filed by the respondent under Section 17(4) for retention of the property was dismissed by order dated 4^th July, 2017. Even the said order has not been challenged by the respondent. The second application for the same relief was not maintainable. The 180 days from the date of seizure of the amount has already been expired. Mr. Nitesh Rana, Advocate seeks time to take instruction about the pendency of FIR or Charge sheet of the schedule offence.

¶13

List on 3^rd May, 2019.

¶14

The appearance of the I.O. is not required for the next date of hearing.

¶15

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶16

(G. C. Mishra) Member

¶17

New Delhi,

¶18

27^th March, 2019

¶19

‘K’

¶20

FPA-PMLA-2151 & 2222/PTN/2018

¶21

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-2151/PTN/2018 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-2151/PTN/2018 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases