AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
FPA-PMLA-1662/HYD/2017
The above-mentioned appeal has been filed by Master Pavitra Agarwal aged about minor/14 years, Occ: student representative by his father and
natural guardian Shri Surender Kumar Agarwal under section 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The appellant was Defendant No. 8
in the complaint. The following property owned by him by way of Registered Gift Deed is attached in 1st Floor of House NO. 15-1-469 having total
plinth area of 1826 Square Feet together with undivided share of land of 87.19 Square Yards out of total 261.59 square yards situated at Feel Khana,
Hyderabad.
At present we are only concerned the appeal is filed by minor. With regard to the other attached movable and immovable properties are concerned
we do not wish to express any opinion in this matter. The present appeal is an independent appeal filed by the minor. His case is in relation to the
property owned by him which was acquired by virtue of Registered Gift Deed has been attached. The following relevant dates are necessary which
would indicate the minor has derived the right of 1st floor of the property as mentioned above:
17.08.1968: Registered sale deed bearing document No. 2114/1968, under which great grandmother of the appellant late Smt. Leela Bai had
purchased the house property bearing municipal No. 15-1-469, admeasuring 261.59 square yards, situated at Feel Khana, Hyderabad.
1986 : Smt. Leela Bai died.
05.07.1995: Sri Motilal, husband of Smt. Leela Bai died.
15.12.2008: Paternal grandfather of appellant Sri Shankarlal, son of Sri Motilal and Smt. Leela Bai, gifted ground floor of the house property bearing
municipal No. 15-1-469, situated at Feel Khana, Hyderabad to his daughter Smt. Kusumlata vide document No. 2934/08.
15.12.2008: Paternal grandfather of appellant Sri Shankarlal, son of Sri Motilal and Smt. Leela Bai, gifted first floor of the house property bearing
municipal No. 15-1-469, situated at Feel Khana, Hyderabad to the appellant vide registered document No. 2935/08.
15.12.2008: Paternal grandfather of appellant Sri Shankarlal, son of Sri Motilal and Smt. Leela Bai, gifted second floor of the house property bearing
municipal No. 15-1-469, situated at Feel Khana, Hyderabad to his son grandson Sri Devank vide document No. 2933/08.
The father of the appellant was alleged to have been involved in money laundering in the year 2009.
2009: As per the complaint of M/s State Bank of Hyderabad, Mahabubganj branch, Hyderabad, M/s Sheetal Siddhi Veg. Oils Pvt. Ltd. (SSVOPL), of
which father of the appellant was a director, the banker had taken over credit facilities from M/s. ING Vysya Bank and sanctioned Cash Credit Limit
of Rs. 16.00 crores including takeover of Rs. 4.00 crore from M/s. ING Vysya Bank, takeover of Term loans of Rs. 0.77 crore and Rs. 3.30 crore
from M/s. ING Vysya Bank.
2010: SBH enhanced credit facilities to M/s SSVOPL from Rs. 16.00 crore to Rs. 20.00 crore
24.11.2014: Central Bureau of Investigation, (BS & FC), Bangalore registered FIR No. RC8(E)/ 2014.
27.02.2016: Central Bureau of Investigation filed charge sheet No. 1/2016 before the Hon’ble XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Nampally, Hyderabad for offences punishable under Section 120(B) read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
09.03.2016: The directorate of enforcement initiated investigation for the alleged scheduled offences under PMLA, ECIR/03/HYZO/2016 dated
09.03.2016.
26.12.2.16: The directorate of enforcement passed order for provisional attachment.
26.12.2016: Order in O.C. No. 622/2016 by the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority under said Act, 2002
The learned counsel for the appellant has produced the original birth certificate which would show that the appellant was about 10 years on 9th
March, 2004. When the provisional attachment order was passed. On 26th December, 2016, his age was 12 years 9 months and 17 days. The
provisional attachment order of the above said matter was passed on 4th July, 2016. At that time his age was 12 years and 4 months. We have heard
both the counsels for the parties. It is settled law that minor is always considered to be under the protection of the court. Any decree obtained against
the minor by not following the due process of law is nullity against him.
The allegations against the appellant’s father are that he was indulged in criminal act of money laundering. The involvement of his father cannot
attributed to him as he is admittedly not charged in any matter. No proceeding of any nature is pending against the appellant. On the date of alleged
offence committed by his father, his age was about 6 years. Today ,his age is about 14 years. It is also not the case of the respondent that the father
of the appellant had gifted the property to him or even it was gifted by the grandfather after the date of involvement of father in the alleged crime. The
gift deed is a registered document.
Nothing has been discussed in either in the provisional attachment order or in the impugned order. The original birth certificate was produced before
us which was also examined by the learned counsel for the respondent who did not deny that on the date of attachment he was not a minor. Even it
was the case of the respondent he was a minor and property gifted to him has been attached.
It is admitted position that at the time of passing the provisional attachment order and confirmation thereof, both the parties were fully aware that
the appellant is a minor who acquired the property by virtue of registered document, which is not questioned by the respondent at the time of hearing.
The said fact was brought to the notice, however, despite of that, the property of the minor has been attached. The said property was gifted by the
grandfather in favour of the appellant vide Registered Gift Deed dated 15.12.2008, which was originally purchased by the great grandmother of the
appellant in the year 1968. The property was acquired by the appellant of one floor i.e. 1st floor, bearing municipal no. 15-1-469 situated at Feel
Khana, Hyderabad. Therefore, at the time of purchasing the property by the appellant, the question of money involved does not arise. This aspect has
not been considered by the respondent as well as the adjudicating authority while passing the orders. No reason to believe in this regard has been
given. It is settled law that if something wrong is done by the father or in relation, his son cannot be punished, Therefore, the attachment order against
the appellant in relation to the 1st floor of the house property bearing municipal no. 15-1-469 situated at Feel Khana, Hyderabad is not sustainable on
facts and law. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 26.12.2016 with regard to the attachment of the appellant property is set aside
by allowing the appeal. The appeal is accordingly allowed. We may clarify that this order shall have no bearing with regard to other properties
attached by the respondent.