Salim Alimohammad Vohra vs Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, Ahmedabad

MP-PMLA-4942/AHD/2018 (Stay)

This appeal has been filed by one Shri Saleem Alimohammad Vohra against the adjudication order dated 21.07.2015 passed under Section 26 of

PMLA, 2002. The present petitioner was not a defendant before the Adjudicating Authority (AA). With the consent of both the parties, they were

heard at the admission stage. The counsel for the petitioner stated that these properties were bought from M/s. Imtsons Investment Ltd., Ahmedabad

under a Power of Attorney in 2011. That the said properties were sealed by the local Police because of some criminal proceedings against them and

because of the recovery of certain offensive articles from the said premises, that it was de-sealed on the applicantâ€s application by the Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad on 05.04.2014. That they had sent a written submission dated 16.07.2015 to the Adjudicating Authority (under

PMLA) which has not been discussed at all by the Adjudicating Authority while passing the impugned order dated 21.07.2015, nor were they heard by

the Adjudicating Authority at any stage. They relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 14.10.2015 in the case of C. Chellamuthu vs.

DD, Enforcement Directorate.

In response, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the bonafide of the appellant is doubtful since he has entered into sale of the said

properties in 2017, much after the final order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority vide OC No. 489/2015 dated 21.07.2015. They were very

much aware that the property was involved in money laundering as they had by their own submission stated they had written to the Adjudicating

Authority in July, 2015. With regard to this letter dated 16.07.2015, the counsel stated that as can be seen from the impugned order that that was the

date of hearing and they have not given any proof as to when it was received by the Adjudicating Authority as the letter is dated 16.07.2015 but its

receipt (in the office of the Adjudicating Authority) date is missing. Moreover, since he was not a defendant and was not in the picture at any stage,

question of either hearing him or entertaining him at any stage did not arise. That in the judgment of Madras High Court quoted by the appellant as

above, the facts were entirely different and hence not relevant for the purpose. He therefore pleaded that the appeal/petition do not deserve to be

admitted.

I have heard both the parties at length at the admission stage. From the above and the records, it is apparent that the present appellant is not a party in

the money laundering case against M/s. Imtsons Investment Ltd. (through its Director Shri Imtiyaz Hussain Saiyad), Ahmedabad. Chargesheets were

issued against Shri Imtiyaz Hussain Saiyad on various dates in 2011 on grounds of cheating public. Accordingly, after following the due process laid

down by law, the Adjudicating Authority held all the properties which belonged to him to be involved in money laundering and confirmed the

provisional attachment order vide its order dated 21.07.2015. As per the submission of the counsel, they had taken these properties under Power of

Attorney in 2011. It is pertinent to note that the Honâ€ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 11.10.2011 held transfer of properties under Power of

Attorney as illegal in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (AIR 2012 SC 206. )The properties therefore

remained with the offender under the money laundering Act (PMLA) i.e. Shri Imtiyaz Hussain Saiyed, Director of M/s. Imtsons Investment Ltd.

Section 3 of PMLA states that “whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually

involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or

claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money laundering.†In the present case, the appellant/petitioner has not been charged

with money laundering under the provisions of PMLA, 2002. Hence, the question of involving him or hearing him before the Adjudicating Authority

does not arise. Even otherwise if he wanted to be impleaded in the case before the AA, he should have taken it up with them well on time. His letter

dated 16.07.2015 is the date when the personal hearing was held for the parties against whom money laundering case was booked, and also there is

no proof that it was served on the AA before the proceedings of hearing had started. Their subsequent purchase of the tainted property in 2017 (the

Sale Deed was registered on 07.11.2017) much after the date when the property was finally attached is an issue which the ED needs to look into

separately. The judgment of the Madras High Court relied upon by them is not of much assistance since in that particular case the purchaser of the

property was unaware of the alleged fraud committed by one Shri G. Srinivasan and that the property in question were proceeds of crime and that the

appellant in those cases were bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. (Para 6(iii) of the judgment). In the present case, the purchaser i.e. the

present petitioner bought the said properties in July, 2017 i.e. much after the final attachment order of these properties holding them to be proceeds of

crime was passed vide the impugned order dated 2015. Their reliance on their letter dated 16.07.2015 shows, if not anything else, that they were

aware of the proceedings under PMLA against the said properties. Today the petition/appeal has been filed before this Tribunal only to secure their

interest in that property which they had apparently purchased in 2017. This Tribunal is a creature of law and cannot go into property disputes for

which there are other forums available. This Tribunal is mandated to hear and pass orders on money laundering as per the provisions of PMLA, 2002

and admittedly the present appellant/petitioner is not accused of the same in the order against which the present petition has been filed. Hence, the

petition has no merits and is dismissed at the admission stage.