The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi, has declined to interfere with an order of provisional attachment passed by the Adjudicating Authority, while clarifying that findings recorded in such proceedings cannot, by themselves, form the sole basis for criminal prosecution. A Bench comprising Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari (Chairman) and G.C. Mishra (Member) held that “the findings recorded in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is not to be carried out in criminal prosecution rather separate evidence has to be laid.” The Tribunal also noted that no prosecution had been launched against the appellant as on date.
The case arose from proceedings initiated by the Initiating Officer, BPU, Raipur, in relation to a property provisionally attached under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act), which stood in the name of Jogi Ram Sahu as the alleged benamidar. While the appellant, M/s Chhattisgarh Sales Corporation, did not claim ownership of the attached property or seek its release, it was impleaded as a “beneficial owner” in the proceedings. Aggrieved by this designation and apprehending exposure to future penal action, the appellant challenged the order dated July 27, 2023, passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant argued that the appeal was not directed at the attachment of the property itself, but at the adverse findings recorded against it, which could potentially lead to criminal proceedings under the Act.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not claimed any proprietary interest in the attached property. The Tribunal held that there was no ground to interfere with the impugned attachment order, particularly since the appellant had not sought release of the property and the attachment did not operate against it directly.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal, holding that while the provisional attachment order would remain undisturbed, the appellant would not be prejudiced in any future proceedings solely on the basis of the impugned adjudication order.
Appearances
Appellant- Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advocate
Respondent- Mr. Kanhaiya Singal, S.P.P. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate
