to recover the loan amount from the collateral. Therefore, it is quite clear that the bank had not exercised due diligence to find out the actual title and status of the property advanced as mortgage against the overdraft. Moreover, the attachment of this amount of Rs. 4 crores does not restrict M/s. Akhileshwar Properties Limited to deposit legally and legitimately acquired money in their overdraft account towards repayment of the outstanding loan liability. But on the date of seizure this particular account no. 08529210006620 on 30.11.2016 does not reflect any negative balance/availing of OD facility. Also, though we agree that the public sector bank is a valid mortgagee and definitely has the right to recover amounts in respect of the overdraft accounts. But in this particular case, it is the 'proceeds of crime' or value thereof which have been deposited through different accounts of the appellant bank and was later mobilized towards repayment of the overdraft, and hence, the same is liable to be attached.Further, Section 71 of PMLA, 2002 provides that the provisions of PMLA, 2002 have an overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force. On the strength of the abovementioned provision, the actions taken under PMLA, 2002 prevails and gains sanctity over any other statute. Further, we find that the case of State Bank of India vs. Joint Director of Enforcement Directorate, Kolkataand others (supra), relied upon by the appellant does not apply to the present matter, as these two cases are completely different in their nature, purpose
