Alka Pahwa vs Assistant Director Directorate Of Enforcement, Chandigarh

Manmohan Singh, J

FPA-PMLA-2133 /CHD/2017

The present appeal has been filed by under Section 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order dated 12th September, 2017

passed in O.A. no. 93 of 2017 by the Adjudicating Authority.

In the O.A. No. 93/2017, no specific allegation made against the appellant. No link and nexus prima facie shown with any accused, except at serial

no. 16 of the said application which includes a list of properties with regard to which the investigation officer of the Enforcement Directorate had

made requests to authorities to restrain the accused and their associates from sale/transfer of the listed properties. The said list includes a property

which had been agreed to be purchased by the appellant from one Mrs. Nirmala Jain but due to certain personal and family reasons on part of the

seller, the sale had not consummated. The OA no. 93 of 2017 does not anywhere mentioned any paper/documents/article or the like which had been

seized and which belong to or have any connection with the appellant.

Upon receipt of a copy of the O.A. no. 93 of 2017, the appellant had filed application in the offices of the AD seeking copies of the

papers/documents/articles seized which may relate to the Appellant. However, the AD has till date not provided any such information so far.

In reply to the O.A. 93 of 2017 filed by the Appellant, the Appellant had stated that in absence of any information as to whether any

papers/documents/articles seized by the AD belong to or have any connection with the appellant, the appellant may be considered not being connected

in the matter of OA 93 of 2017.

The case of the appellant is that no cogent evidence has been provided by the ED in order to show that the appellant has any link and nexus with

any alleged accused parties. The appellant has written two letters dated 29th June, 2017 and 12th July, 2017 in order to explain her stand before the

ED, however, despite of the same, the appellant has erred as defendant no. 50 in the O.A.

In fact in para no. 11, 12 & 13 of the reply, the following statements were made by the appellant in reply dated 12th July, 201. The same has read

as under:-

“11. That the Answering Respondent had filed application in the office of the learned AD twice, on June 26,2017 and on July 12,2017

seeking copies of the papers/documents/articles seized by the office of the learned Ad which belong to the Answering Respondent or may be

related to the Answering Respondent but has not been provided any copy so Far. This reply of the Answering Respondent may thus be

considered to be a preliminary reply and the Answering Respondent reserves its right to file a comprehensive and detailed reply upon

receipt of copies of papers/documents/articles sought for.

That upon perusal of the aforesaid application it has come to notice that a communication has been addressed by the Directorate of

Enforcement to the Sub-Registrar-V, Kalkaji, New Delhi, Seeking details of the properties situated at Mustatil No. 53 Kila No. 20 and 21,

Revenue Estate Village Jonapur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, and also stating that any request for the sale/transfer of the aforesaid

property shall not be allowed without the NOC of the Office of the Directorate of Enforcement.

It is informed that an agreement was entered in relation to the aforesaid property where the Answering Respondent was the buyer and one

Mrs. Nirmala Jain as the Seller. Due to certain personal and family reasons on the part of the Seller, the sale of the aforesaid property did

not take place on favour of the Answering Respondent.

That save and exc[-ept the document referred to in para 9 above, which documents as such has no connection with the person/s

searched by the learned AD prior to institution of the OA under reply, and that in absence of any information as to whether any

papers/documents/articles seized by the learned AD belong to the Answering Respondent or have any connection with the Answering

Respondent, the Answering Respondent may kindly be considered not to be connected in the matter of Original Application No. 93 of 2017

in ECIR No. CDZO/06/2016.â€​

The impugned order was passed on 12th September, 2017, it covers 123 pages. There are fifty respondents. Upto page no. 118, the facts and

contents of the reply are reproduced. Individual reply filed by the parties have not been discussed or considered.

Even in the discussion and finding, no plea of the appellant has been referred wherein it was stated that the appellant was the buyer of the property

and Mrs. Nirmala Jain was the seller of the said property and due to personal reasons on the part of the seller the sale of the property did not take

place in favour of the appellant. Thus, her name should be deleted as respondent. The appellant thus before this Tribunal claiming no right in the

property. She was arrayed as defendant no. 50 in the application.

Counsel for respondent says that since she is claiming no right and title in the property, her name may be deleted. Even, no prosecution complaint

has been filed under section 8(3)(a) of the Act. Ninety days period has already been expired.

Therefore, the impugned order against the appellant is set-aside by allowing the present appeal.