ADVERTISEMENT
Chattisgarh High Court
Arun Kumar Sahu vs The Deputy Director on 22 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:18260-DB
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MA No. 21 of 2026
Tushar Sahu S/o Yoganand Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Panduka, Tehsil
Rajim, Distt. Gariyaband (C.G.)
--- Appellant(s)
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur, Government of India,
A-1 Block, Pachpedi Naka, Pujari Chambers, Raipur C.G. 492001
--- Respondent(s)
MA No. 22 of 2026
Pankaj Kumar Sahu S/o Arun Kumar Sahu Aged About 32 Years Gram
Panduka, Thana- Panduka, Tehsil Chhura, Dist- Gariyaband C.G. 493887.
---Appellant(s)
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur, Government of India
A-1 Block, Pachpedi Naka, Pujari Chambers, Raipur C.G. 492001.
--- Respondent(s)
MA No. 23 of 2026
Poonam Sahu D/o Arun Kumar Sahu Aged About 35 Years Gram - Panduka,
Thana - Panduka, Tehsil - Chhura, Distt. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 493887
---Appellant(s)
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur Government of India
A-1 Block, Pujari Chamber, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur 492001
--- Respondent(s)
2
MA No. 24 of 2026
Piyush Kumar Sahu S/o Arun Kumar Sahu Aged About 36 Years Gram -
Panduka, Thana - Panduka, Tehsil Chhura, Distt. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh
493887
---Appellant(s)
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur Government of India
A-1 Block, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur 492001
--- Respondent(s)
MA No. 25 of 2026
Arun Kumar Sahu S/o Late Sri Lalji Sahu Aged About 69 Years Gram-
Panduka, Thana- Panduka, Tehsil Chhura, Dist. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh
493887
---Appellant(s)
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur Government of India
A-1 Block, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, C.G. 492001
--- Respondent(s)
MA No. 26 of 2026
Ranu Sahu W/o Jai Prakash Maurya, Aged About 41 Years R/o D-2, Officers
Colony, Devendra Nagar, Raipur C.G.
---Appellant(s)
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur, Government of India,
A-1 Block Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur C.G. 492001
--- Respondent(s)
MA No. 27 of 2026
Shalini Sahu W/o Piyush Kumar Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Gram-
Panduka, Thana- Panduka, Tehsil- Chhura, District- Gariyaband,
Chhattisgarh- 493887
---Appellant(s)
Versus
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur, Government of India,
A-1 Block, Pachpedi Naka, Pujari Chamber, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001
--- Respondent(s)
3
MA No. 28 of 2026
Laxmi Sahu W/o Arun Kumar Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Gram- Panduka,
Thana- Panduka, Tehsil- Chhura, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh- 493887
---Appellant(s)
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur, Government of India,
A-1 Block, Pachpedi Naka, Pujari Chambers, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001
--- Respondent(s)
MA No. 29 of 2026
Revti Sahu W/o Yoganand Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Panduka, Tehsil-
Rajim, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.
---Appellant(s)
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur, Government of India,
A-1 Block, Pachpedi Naka, Pujari Chambers, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001
--- Respondent(s)
(Cause Title Taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant(s) :
Ms. Somaya Gupta (through Video Conferencing)
and Ms. Khushboo Naresh Dua, Advocates.
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 15/04/2026
Date of Judgment : 22/04/2026
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
C.A.V. Judgment
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Heard Ms. Somaya Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant(s) through Video Conferencing as well as Dr. Saurabh Kumar
Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement
(for short, the ED).
2. Since all these appeals filed under Section 42 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, the PMLA), arise from a
common order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under the
4
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property)
Act, 1976 {for short, the SAFEMA} at New Delhi (for short, the Appellate
Tribunal), and all the appellants are family members and the issue and
facts are also similar and interconnected, they were heard together and
are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The appellant, in MA No. 21/2026, has prayed for the following relief(s):
"a. Allow the present Appeal;
b. Pass an order setting aside the Impugned Final Order dated
16.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal under
SAFEMA at New Delhi in FPA-PMLA-6921/RP/2023 titled
"Tushar Sahu v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement,
Raipur whereby the Appeal dismissed by the Hon'ble Appellate
Tribunal and consequently, the Final Order dated 09.10.2023
passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint
No. 1988 of 2023 dated 28.05.2023 whereby the Ld.
Adjudicating Authority confirmed the Provisional Attachment
Order No. 02/2023 in ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022
was upheld;
c. Pass such other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice."
4. The appellant, in MA No. 22/2026, has prayed for the following relief(s):
"a. Allow the present Appeal;
b. Pass an order setting aside the Impugned Final Order dated
16.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal under
SAFEMA at New Delhi in FPA-PMLA-6932/RP/2023 titled
"Pankaj Kumar Sahu v. Deputy Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, Raipur" whereby the Appeal dismissed by the
Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal and consequently, the Final Order
dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in
Original Complaint No. 1988 of 2023 dated 28.05.2023
whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the
Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2023 in
ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022 was upheld;
c. Pass such other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice. ."
5. The appellant, in MA No. 23/2026, has prayed for the following relief(s):
"a. Allow the present Appeal;
b. Pass an order setting aside the Impugned Final Order
dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal
5
under SAFEMA at New Delhi in FPA-PMLA-6933/RP/2023
titled "POONAM SAHU v. Deputy Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, Raipur" whereby the Appeal dismissed by the
Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal and consequently, the Final Order
dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in
Original Complaint No. 1988 of 2023 dated 28.05.2023
whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the
Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2023 in
ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022 was upheld;
c. Pass such other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice."
6. The appellant, in MA No. 24/2026, has prayed for the following relief(s):
"a. Allow the present Appeal;
b. Pass an order setting aside the Impugned Final Order
dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal
under SAFEMA at New Delhi in FPA-PMLA-6920/RP/2023
titled "Piyush Sahu v. Deputy Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, Raipur" whereby the Appeal dismissed by the
Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal and consequently, the Final Order
dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in
Original Complaint No. 1988 of 2023 dated 28.05.2023
whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the
Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2023 in
ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022 was upheld;
c. Pass such other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice."
7. The appellant, in MA No. 25/2026, has prayed for the following relief(s):
"a. Allow the present Appeal;
b. Pass an order setting aside the Impugned Final Order
dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal
under SAFEMA at New Delhi in FPA-PMLA-6918/RP/2023
titled "Arun Kumar Sahu v. Deputy Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, Raipur" whereby the Appeal dismissed by the
Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal and consequently, the Final Order
dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in
Original Complaint No. 1988 of 2023 dated 28.05.2023
whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the
Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2023 in
ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022 was upheld;
c. Pass such other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice."
8. The appellant, in MA No. 26/2026, has prayed for the following relief(s):
"a. Allow the present Appeal;
6
b. Pass an order setting aside the Impugned Final Order
dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal
under SAFEMA at New Delhi in FPA-PMLA-6924/RP/2023
titled "Ranu Sahu v. Deputy Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, Raipur" whereby the Appeal dismissed by the
Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal and consequently, the Final Order
dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in
Original Complaint No. 1988 of 2023 dated 28.05.2023
whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the
Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2023 in
ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022 was upheld;
c. Pass such other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice.."
9. The appellant, in MA No. 27/2026, has prayed for the following relief(s):
"a. Allow the present Appeal;
b. Pass an order setting aside the Impugned Final Order
dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal
under SAFEMA at New Delhi in FPA-PMLA-6919/RP/2023
titled "SHALINI SAHU v. Deputy Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, Raipur" whereby the Appeal dismissed by the
Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal and consequently, the Final Order
dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in
Original Complaint No. 1988 of 2023 dated 28.05.2023
whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the
Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2023 in
ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022 was upheld;
c. Pass such other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice. Court. ."
10. The appellant, in MA No. 28/2026, has prayed for the following relief(s):
"a. Allow the present Appeal;
b. Pass an order setting aside the Impugned Final Order
dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal
under SAFEMA at New Delhi in FPA-PMLA-6922/RP/2023
titled "Laxmi Sahu v. Deputy Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, Raipur" whereby the Appeal dismissed by the
Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal and consequently, the Final Order
dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in
Original Complaint No. 1988 of 2023 dated 28.05.2023
whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the
Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2023 in
ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022 was upheld;
c. Pass such other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice."
11. The appellant, in MA No. 29/2026, has prayed for the following relief(s):
7
"a. Allow the present Appeal;
b. Pass an order setting aside the Impugned Final Order
dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal
under SAFEMA at New Delhi in FPA-PMLA-6923/RP/2023
titled "REVTI SAHU v. Deputy Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, Raipur" whereby the Appeal dismissed by the
Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal and consequently, the Final Order
dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in
Original Complaint No. 1988 of 2023 dated 28.05.2023
whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the
Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2023 in
ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022 was upheld;
c. Pass such other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice."
12. Challenge in these appeals filed under Section 42 of the PMLA is to the
common final order dated 16.10.2025 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
impugned order) passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers
and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976
{for short, the SAFEMA} at New Delhi (for short, the Appellate Tribunal),
in FPA-PMLA-6924/RP/2023 {in respect of appellant-Ranu Sahu}, FPA-
PMLA-6918/RP/2023 {in respect of appellant-Arun Kumar Sahu}, FPA-
PMLA-6919/RP/2023 {in respect of appellant-Shalini Sahu}, FPA-
PMLA-6920/RP/2023 {in respect of appellant-Piyush Kumar Sahu},
FPA-PMLA-6921/RP/2023 {in respect of appellant-Tushar Sahu}, FPA-
PMLA-6922/RP/2023 {in respect of appellant-Laxmi Sahu}, FPA-PMLA-
6923/RP/2023 {in respect of appellant-Revti Sahu}, FPA-PMLA-6932/
RP/2023 {in respect of appellant-Pankaj Kumar Sahu}, FPA-PMLA-
6933/RP/2023 {in respect of appellant-Poonam Sahu} by which the
learned Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellants challenging the order dated 09.10.2023 (for short, the
Confirmation Order) passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority (for
short, the AA) under the PMLA in Original Complaint No. 1988/2023 (for
short, the OC) by which the Provisional Attachment Order (for short, the
PAO) dated 08.05.2023, against the appellants, has been confirmed.
8
13. All the other appellants are relatives of Ranu Sahu. The appellant-
Tushar Sahu is the cousin of Ranu Sahu. Pankaj Kumar Sahu, Piyush
Kumar Sahu are brothers of Ranu Sahu. Poonam Sahu is the sister of
Ranu Sahu. Arun Kumar Sahu is the father and Laxmi Sahu is the
mother of Ranu Sahu. Sahlini Sahu is the wife of Piyush Kumar Sahu
and Revti Sahu is the Aunt (rkbZ) of Ranu Sahu.
14. The appeal, being MA No. 26/2026 filed by the appellant-Ranu Sahu, is
taken as the lead case.
15. The facts, as projected by the appellant-Ranu Sahu is that on
12.07.2022, an FIR No. 129/2022 was registered by Kadugodi Police
Station, Whitefield, Bengaluru under Section 186, 204, 353 and 120 B of
the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) against one Suryakant Tiwari
and others on the basis of a complaint filed by Deputy Director of Income
Tax, Foreign Assets Investigation, Unit 1, Bengaluru alleging that as part
of the conspiracy, during the course of search by the Income Tax
Department on 30.06.2022, Suryakant Tiwari had allegedly obstructed
the officials from carrying out their official duties and destroyed crucial
incriminating documents and digital evidence about the alleged illegal
extortion on Coal Transportation, payments collected by Suryakant
Tiwari and his gang.
16. According to Ms. Somaya Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Ranu Sahu, the appellant was not named in the FIR and
further, no scheduled offence was disclosed in the FIR which was initially
registered. It was only subsequently, vide Addendum dated 03.09.2022,
that Section 384 IPC was added in the FIR. The appellant was not
named even in the said Addendum. On 13.09.2022, OM in F.No.
289/ED/36/2022-IT (Inv. II) was forwarded by Central Board of Direct
9
Taxes (for short, the CBDT) to the ED containing the FIR No. 129/2022
P.S. Kadugodi, along with a report on the investigation conducted by the
Income Tax Department on M/s Jay Ambey Group of Raipur (Suryakant
Tiwari Group). On 29.09.2022, ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 was registered by
the ED, Raipur Zonal Office on the basis of Sections 120B and 384 IPC
being a part of FIR 129/2022. The appellant-Ranu Sahu was not named
in the said ECIR registered by the ED. On 14.10.2022, a search
operation was conducted at the residence of the appellant-Ranu Sahu,
i.e. the Collector's House, Raigarh, from where certain documents were
seized. On 4 occasions i.e. 14.10.2022, 20.10.2022, 21.10.2022 and
28.10.2022, the appellant-Ranu Sahu duly complied with the summons
issued by the ED and her statements under Section 50 of PMLA were
recorded. The same has been admitted by the ED in the prosecution
complaint filed against her. Pursuant to the instant ECIR, vide
Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2022 dated 09.12.2022 (for short,
the 1st PAO) passed by the ED in the aforestated ECIR, properties to the
tune of approximately Rs.152.31 Crores were attached belonging to
Sameer Vishnoi, Suryakant Tiwari and Saumya Chaurasia. The said
PAO stands confirmed by the learned AA. It is pertinent to note that none
of the properties of the appellant were attached. On 09.12.2022, the ED
filed its Prosecution Complaint (for short, the PC) against Suryakant
Tiwari, Laxmikant Tiwari, Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Sameer Vishnoi, M/s
Indermani Mineral India Pvt. Ltd., M/s Maa Madwarani Coal
Beneficiation Pvt. Ltd., M/s KJSL Coal & Power Pvt. Ltd., for
commission of offence of Money Laundering under Section 3 punishable
under Section 4 of the PMLA before the learned Special Court of PMLA,
Raipur. The appellant was not named as an accused in the 1st PC.
Thereafter, vide PAO No. 01/2023 dated 29.01.2023 (for short, the
10
second PAO) passed by the ED in the instant ECIR, properties to the
tune of approximately Rs.17.48 Crores were attached. The said PAO
stands confirmed by the learned AA. At this stage also, none of the
properties of the appellant-Ranu Sahu were attached.
17. Subsequently on 30.01.2023, 1st Supplementary Prosecution Complaint
was filed against Saumya Chaurasia, Anurag Chaurasia, Deepesh
Taunk, Rajnikant Tiwari, Kailash Tiwari, Sandeep Kumar Nayak, Shiv
Shankar Nag and Rajesh Chaudhary before the Hon'ble Special Court of
PMLA, Raipur for commission of offence of money laundering under
Section 3 punishable under Section 4 PMLA before the Hon'ble Special
Court of PMLA, Raipur. The appellant was not named as an accused in
the 2nd PC as well. Vide PAO No. 02/2023 dated 08.05.2023 (for short,
the third PAO) passed by the ED in the instant ECIR under Section 5(1)
of PMLA, properties to the tune of approximately Rs.51.40 Crores were
provisionally attached belonging to, inter alia, the appellant-Ranu Sahu
and her family members to the tune of a total of Rs. 5.52 Crores. On
28.05.2023, the OC bearing No. 1988/2023 dated 28.05.2023 in the
instant ECIR was filed on behalf of the respondent before the learned AA
under Section 5(5) of PMLA seeking confirmation of PAO dated
08.05.2023 bearing No. 02/2023 in the instant ECIR. On 30.05.2023, the
learned Special Court, PMLA, Raipur took cognizance of both the
aforementioned PCs filed by the ED in the captioned ECIR. A show
cause notice dated 07.06.2023 was issued to the appellant-Ranu Sahu
by the learned AA under Section 8(1) of the PMLA calling upon the
defendant therein to show cause why the PAO in respect of properties
should not be confirmed as representing proceeds of crime (for short,
the PoC) being value of properties involved in money laundering. The
same was accompanied with purported reasons to believe under
11
Section 8(1) of PMLA dated 05.06.2023 which does not even mention
the name of the appellant herein, let alone bearing formation of belief of
the learned AA to satisfy the test under Section 8(1) PMLA. On
15.06.2023, a charge-sheet/final report was filed in FIR No. 129/2022
registered at PS Kadugodi under Sections 204 and 353 IPC by the
Karnataka State Police before Chief Judicial Magistrate Rural Court,
Bengaluru against Suryakant Tiwari. No charge-sheet has been filed
under any scheduled offence mentioned in the FIR i.e. under Sections
120B or 384 IPC. In fact, even cognizance has not been taken under any
scheduled offence. Further, for the purposes of FIR No. 129/2022, a
charge-sheet has not been filed till date for a scheduled offence. In any
case the appellant has not been charge-sheeted in the purported
predicate offence and the charge-sheet filed does not disclose the
commission of any scheduled offence to invoke the provisions of PMLA.
Therefore, at the time of issuance of PAO and the show cause notice, a
surviving scheduled offence did not exist.
18. Ms. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that PC
having Ref. No. 3167/2023 dated 19.06.2023 was filed by the IT
Department invoking therein Sections 181, 191, 193, 196, 200, 120B
and 420 of the IPC by the ITD Bhopal against Suryakant Tiwari,
Saumya Chaurasia, Sameer Vishnoi, Rajnikant Tiwari, Laxmikant
Tiwari, Nikhil Chandrakar, Rahul Kumar Singh, Navneet Tiwari, Parekh
Kumar Kurrey, Sheikh Moeenuddin Quereshi, Chandra Prakash
Jaiswal, Roshan Kumar Singh, Manish Upadhyay, Hemant Jaiswal. It
appears that the appellant has not been named in the said Prosecution
Complaint. It appears that such Prosecution Complaint dated
19.06.2023 has been clubbed with the instant ECIR and investigation
into the offence of money-laundering was initiated. The appellant was
12
not named as a suspect in the ECIR or such PC. In compliance of the
show cause notice dated 07.06.2023, issued under Section 8(1) of
PMLA, the appellant filed her reply on 25.07.2023. The ED, in a
completely arbitrary and illegal manner, arrested the appellant on
22.07.2023 under Section 19 of PMLA in relation to the instant ECIR.
The appellant-Ranu Sahu was granted regular bail by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 07.08.2024 in SLP (Crl) No. 6963/2024 {Ranu Sahu
v. Directorate of Enforcement). Thereafter, on 18.08.2023, the ED filed
its 2nd supplementary PC in the captioned ECIR arraigning the following
persons as accused namely, Nikhil Chandrakar, the appellant-Ranu
Sahu, Piyush Sahu, Devendra Singh Yadav, Chandradev Prasad Rai,
Vinod Tiwari, Ram Pratap Singh, Roshan Kumar Singh, Manish
Upadhyay, Navneet Tiwari, Narayan Sahu before the Hon'ble Special
Court of PMLA, Raipur for commission of offence of money laundering
under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 PMLA before the learned
Special Court of PMLA, Raipur. Pursuant to the reply filed in the OC No.
1988/2023 on behalf of the appellant, a aejoinder dated 13.09.2023 was
filed on behalf of ED. Pursuant to hearing final arguments in OC No.
1988/2023, the learned AA passed the final order dated 09.10.2023
whereby it confirmed the PAO No. 02/2023 and allowed the OC No.
1988/2023 without returning any findings on the contentions raised by
the appellant-Ranu Sahu. Ms. Gupta would submit that the confirmation
order has been passed mechanically for 100 movable and immovable
properties of all defendants therein, being a complete reproduction of the
written averments made by both the appellant-Ranu Sahu and ED and
devoid of any substantial application of mind or detailed reasoning by
the learned AA. At this point, no scheduled offence was in existence and
the PAO was erroneously confirmed by the learned AA. The appellant-
13
Ranu Sahu preferred an appeal dated 01.12.2023 before the learned
Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 (1) of PMLA against the
Confirmation Order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the learned AA in OC
No. 1988 of 2023 dated 28.05.2023 whereby the learned AA has
confirmed the PAO No. 02/2023 in ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated
29.09.2022.
19. Ms. Gupta would further submit that to cure the defect of absence of a
surviving scheduled offence in the Coal Levy, ECIR/RPZO/09/2022, FIR
No. 03/2024 dated 17.01.2024 (for short, the 2 nd Coal Levy FIR") was
registered by Police Station, EOW & ACB, Raipur on the basis of
information furnished by the ED under SEction 66(2) of PMLA on
11.01.2024 to the DGP, ACB and EOW Raipur, Chhattisgarh in relation
to facts discovered during investigation into ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated
29.09.2022. In any case, registration of the said FIR cannot cure the
defect of the issuance and confirmation of the PAO in absence of a
scheduled offence. Vide order dated 20.02.2024 passed in the appeal
before the learned Appellate Tribunal, possession was directed to
remain with the appellant of the properties attached observing that there
was no exceptional reason for the notice under Section 8(4) PMLA to be
issued to the appellant herein. A reply to the Appeal bearing No. FPA-
PMLA-6924/RP/2023 was filed on 12.08.2024 by the Respondent ED
before the learned Appellate Tribunal. Pursuant to hearing the final
arguments, the learned Appellate Tribunal, in a completely arbitrary and
mechanical manner passed the impugned Order on 16.10.2025. Not
only has the learned Appellate Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate
the contentions raised by the appellant, but it has also failed to record
the submissions.
14
20. Ms. Gupta would submit that the case of ED is that from the perusal of
the PC and 1st Supplementary PC, the gravamen of ED's case appears
to be that the cartel of Suryakant Tiwari as part of a well planned
conspiracy and with the active support of Politicians and senior
government functionaries managed to influence Sameer Vishnoi, the
then director of Geology & Mining, and got issued Government order
dated 15.07.2020 which became the fountain head of this extortion
system. It is further alleged that the above notification dated 15.07.2020,
which was issued by Sameer Vishnoi, at the instance of the cartel led by
Suryakant Tiwari, modified the pre-existing transparent online process of
getting e-Permits for transporting coal from mine to users, into a system
which made it prone to massive corruption. It is further alleged that the
notification introduced a requirement of getting a manual NOC from the
mining section of the District Magistrate's office and this forced the coal
user companies to physically apply to mining officer/DM for NOC for
issuance of e-transportation permit. This introduction of a layer in the
process of issuance of Transport Permits was misutilized by the Coal
Cartel to demand Rs. 25 per tonne illegally, failing which the NOC was
either not issued, or delayed to render the Coal Delivery Order (CDO)
useless. It is further alleged that Suryakant Tiwari, the head of this
syndicate on ground, deployed his men in various districts of
Chhattisgarh who were in direct physical contact with the district level
mining officers or through whatsapp messages. It is further alleged that
this system of collection of illegal cash was facilitated/ coordinated by
Suryakant Tiwari on the ground, and the system ran with impunity and
without any interruption because Suryakant Tiwari had the backing of
the Highest powers in the state and due to Mis close association with
Saumya Chaurasia and in turn with other senior IAS/IPS officers. It is
15
further alleged that large amounts of cash was used to purchase land
properties in the names of associates and distant relatives of Suryakant
Tiwari, Saumya Churasia, Sameer Vishnoi and other associates of the
syndicate. The circle/ guidance rate in Chhattisgarh is relatively low and
it allowed the accused persons to purchase costly lands by giving only a
small fraction of the purchase consideration in cheque and remaining
amount in cash.
21. Ms. Gupta would next submit that with respect to the appellant-Ranu
Sahu, she has has not been named as a part of any such cartel which
conspired for the issuance of such GO dated 15.07.2020. It is not the
case of the ED that the appellant facilitated the issuance of such
notification. In fact, she was posted as the Commissioner, GST with the
additional charge as Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Tourism
Development Board during such a period. The case of the ED against
the appellant is that, the appellant worked as the District Collector of 2
districts significant for the purposes of coal i.e. Korba (from June 2021 to
June 2022) and Raigarh (from June 2022 to February 2023) i.e. during
the period of the scam and facilitated the collection of aforementioned
extortion amount by the coal syndicate of Suryakant Tiwari and received
huge bribe amounts from Suryakant Tiwari and his associates. Further,
scanty whatsapp chats of generic nature, bearing no reference to any
financial transaction, between Roshan Singh (allegedly member of
Suryakant Tiwari syndicate) along with whatsapp chats of personal
nature, bearing no reference to any financial transaction, between the
appellant and Suryakant Tiwari are being relied upon in order to
fallaciously demonstrate the appellant's participation in the alleged
conspiracy. Further, the ED has gone beyond the scope of the FIR in the
purported predicate offence and has also alleged that the scope of
16
purported corruption by the appellant is not confined to coal levy but also
irregularities in allotment of tenders of District Mining Fund. It is pertinent
to note that DMF is not the subject matter of the concerned FIR and no
allegations in relation to DMF funds forms part of the predicate offence.
The appellant has been alleged to have aided and abetted Suryakant
Tiwari in collection of such illegal amounts and to have received
kickbacks in form of bribe which she gave to Rajnikant for safekeeping
and amounts were spent by them as and when required according to the
instructions of the appellant. It is alleged that perusal of the handwritten
ledger maintained by Rajnikant Tiwari (associate/brother of Suryakant
Tiwari) has entries with "RS/Ranu Mem/Ranu" from October 2021 to
April 2022 showing 'incoming' of a total amount of Rs. 5.52 Crores. The
ED has stated that such an amount was handed over by the appellant to
Suryakant Tiwari and his associates, and Rs. 5.52 Crores is the
quantum of illegal collection performed by the appellant. The ED has
alleged that the said amount of Rs. 5.52 Crores has been utilised by the
appellant in purchase of land in the name of family as the cash could not
have come from any other legal business of her family. appellant is
alleged to have acquired several immovable properties in Chhattisgarh
after 15.07.2020 through her family members who are purportedly
benami holders for the appellant. The ED has proceeded to attach
properties purchased between 2017-2021 belonging to the appellant
and her family members in the nature of both direct proceeds of crime
and value thereof to the tune of Rs. 5.52 Crores. The properties attached
belonging to the appellant were purchased before 15.07.2020 i.e. the
date of the purported predicate offence.
22. With respect to appellant(s) Tushar Sahu, Pankaj Kumar Sahu, Poonam
Sahu, Piyush Kumar Sahu, Arun Kumar Sahu, Shalini Sahu, Laxmi
17
Sahu and Revti Sahu, Ms. Gupta would submit that there is no allegation
of involvement of these appellants in the scheduled offence or the
offence of money laundering. There is no role alleged or any conspiracy
attributed qua the appellants in relation to the scheduled offence. The
relevant property belonging to the appellants have been attached by the
ED. The allegation of the ED is that the property purchased by these
appellants were in fact purchased from the illegal money earned by the
appellant-Ranu Sahu. The appellants are alleged to have purchased
numerous immovable properties in cash. As per the allegations, the
majority of the real estate consideration was paid in cash form to sellers
and the minority portion via cheque. The cash of huge proportions have
been utilized in purchase of land by the appellants and the only source of
cash would have been the bribe money collected by Ms. Ranu Sahu for
her active cooperation in the coal syndicate. The money originated out of
proceeds of crime, being the share of Ms. Ranu Sahu was utilized by
appellant in purchase of properties. The appellant had knowingly
supported Ms. Ranu Sahu in laundering proceeds of crime. Ms. Gupta
would next submit that the learned Appellate Tribunal as well as the
learned ADD have failed to appreciate that the ED's case against the
appellants is false, presumptuous, incoherent and mutually
contradictory.
23. Ms. Gupta would submit that vide Order No. F.No. 4138-47/
Sankhikiya/Coal Bhandaran/N.Kra./2020, dated 15.07.2020, issued by
the State Government, under the signatures of Sameer Vishnoi, IAS who
was the Director, Geology & Mining, as well as Managing Director of
Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation, a change in the process
of getting e-permits for transportation of coal from mines to users was
introduced. A requirement of getting a manual NOC from the District
18
Mining Officer was introduced into an erstwhile fully online process. The
appellant-Ranu Sahu, at this point of time was posted as the
Commissioner, GST with the additional charge of Managing Director,
Chhattisgarh Tourism Development board and had no role to play in
issuance of such notification. Ranu Sahu took charge as the District
Collector of Korba on 08.06.2021 and remained there upto 30.06.2022.
According to the ED, this was the time when Ranu Sahu got involved in
the predicate offence of allegedly collection of additional levy of Rs. 25/-
per tonne of coal. 19 immovable properties purchased by Ranu Sahu
and her family members prior to 15.07.2020, were attached and 4
immovable properties allegedly purchased out of PoC i.e. after
15.07.2020 were also atached. In fact, two out of such properties do not
even belong to either the family members/Ranu Sahu or anyone known.
24. With respect to the order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, Ms.
Gupta would submit that the learned Appellate Tribunal failed to
consider that the impugned order therein was ex-facie erroneous for
being cryptic, unreasoned and templated, and therefore, liable aside. It
was evident from the order that the contents of the OC, reply and
rejoinder have been entirely reproduced along with the relevant statutory
provisions and no appreciation of facts or law has been undertaken by
the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, and no legitimate reasons whatsoever
have been assigned for allowing the OC. The Order under S. 8(3) PMLA
had been passed without returning any findings on the contentions
raised by the appellants, both in pleadings and arguments. The learned
Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the order under Section 8(3)
PMLA is in the teeth of the following view taken by the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi vide Order dated 22.03.2023 in WP(C) No. 5744/2022
19
'State Bank of India v. Directorate of Enforcement' on 'templated orders'
passed by the learned AA, using identical paragraphs in several orders:
"5. Use of identical templated paragraphs could reflect as non-
application of mind by the Authority concerned and hence ought
to be avoided. The Adjudicating Authority is cautioned about
passing such templated orders.
6. The above position shall be brought to the notice of the
Adjudicating Authority by ld. Counsel appearing for the
Enforcement Directorate."
25. The learned Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the AA has
passed the confirmation order in contravention with the duty cast upon it
under Section 8(2) of PMLA as it has failed to take into account the
contentions raised by the appellants and peruse the material on record.
In fact, apart from reproducing the entire case of the ED, no finding is
recorded with respect to the involvement in money laundering of
appellant's properties attached. The instant ECIR was registered on the
basis of scheduled offences being Sections 120B and 384 IPC in FIR
No. 129/2022 PS Kadugodi. The charge-sheet dated 15.06.2023 in FIR
No. 129/2022 PS Kadugodi was filed under Sections 204 and 353 IPC
by the Karnataka State Police and no charge-sheet has been filed under
any offence which is scheduled for the purposes of PMLA. In fact, none
of the scheduled offences were even under investigation with respect to
the said FIR. Not only has the appellants been an accused in the
purported predicate offence, but there also was no scheduled offence as
on the date of issuance of the PAO and its confirmation by the learned
AA. The commission of a scheduled offence is a sine qua non for
commencement of proceedings under the PMLA. The PMLA defines the
meaning of 'proceeds of crime' under Section 2(1)(u) which states that it
is property, derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a
20
result of criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence. It is not the
case that proceeds from every crime are treated as proceeds of crime. In
the instant PAO proceedings, the entire reliance has been placed on FIR
No. 129/2022 by the ED as predicate/scheduled offence, on the basis of
which it had recorded the instant ECIR and commenced investigation.
Since no scheduled offence has been made out at the conclusion of
investigation in FIR No. 129/2022. The entire case of the ED is that the
syndicate of Suryakant Tiwari and his associates were collecting an
additional illegal amount of Rs. 25/- per ton from coal user companies
pursuant to the G.O. dated 15.07.2020 which introduced a requirement
of getting a manual NOC from the mining section of DM's office. It is not
anyone's case that the appellants, more so appellant-Ranu Sahu was
involved in the issuance of such notification. The learned AA failed to
appreciate that contrary to the ED's case that the appellant has aided
Suryakant Tiwari and his associates in collection of illegal amounts, the
appellants herein are not even an accused in the predicate offence and
neither is the charge-sheet filed against her, let alone the charge-sheet
not having been filed for any scheduled offence. The learned Appellate
Tribunal failed to consider that the ED's case is that the appellant-Ranu
Sahu aided and abetted Suryakant Tiwari in collection of such illegal
amounts and to have received kickbacks in form of bribe which she gave
to Rajnikant for safekeeping and amounts were spent by them as and
when required according to the instructions of the appellant-Ranu Sahu.
However, there has been no investigation into how, when and by what
means did the appellant-Ranu Sahu receive the bribe monies from
Suryakant Tiwari or his associates. ED has placed reliance on the
handwritten diary maintained by Suryakant's brother showing an amount
of Rs. 5.52 Crores deposited by the appellant-Ranu Sahu with
21
Suryakant Tiwari for safekeeping. There has been no investigation into
the source of such an amount of Rs. 5.52 Crores and there is nothing on
record to show that the entire amount derived or obtained was related to
the predicate offence. The ED has failed to show the necessary causal
link between the alleged predicate offence and the purported proceeds
of crime qua the appellant.
26. Ms. Gupta would next submit that the ED has gone beyond the scope of
the purported predicate offence and has also alleged that the scope of
purported corruption by the appellant-Ranu Sahu is not confined to coal
levy but also irregularities in allotment of tenders of District Mining Fund
which in fact is subject matter of another ECIR/RPZO/02/2023. On one
hand, the ED has admitted that the predicate offence in the instant ECIR
relates to the illegal collection of an additional Rs.25 per ton of coal
pursuant to the issuance of GO dated 15.07.2020 as it is ED's own case
that 15.07.2020 is the date of commission of predicate offence. On the
other hand, the ED has stated that the appellant-Ranu Sahu has
received huge bribe amounts not only in relation to the illegal levy for
coal transportation but also in relation to allocation of DMF thereby
exceeding the scope of the predicate offence and investigating when no
such offence exists for the purposes of the instant ECIR. It is pertinent to
note that no allegations with respect to DMF funds forms part of the
predicate offence. The ED appears to be making baseless allegations to
somehow make out a case against the appellant-Ranu Sahu. There is
no cogent material to link the appellants with the predicate offence and
baseless quantification of PoC in relation to the appellants. The ED has
failed to show how the alleged Rs 5.52 Crores partakes the character of
PoC which has been derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any
person as a result of criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence.
22
Unless the same is established, no amount of vague allegations of
disproportionate assets/attaching properties of family members of the
appellant-Ranu Sahu, which are entirely unconnected with the proceeds
of crime, can amount to the offence of money laundering. The learned
Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the ED has simply quantified
the PoC to the tune of Rs. 5.52 Crores in relation to the appellant-Ranu
Sahu solely on the basis of cryptic entries made by one Rajnikant Tiwari
(brother of Suryakant Tiwari) in handwritten diaries maintained by him
purportedly for unaccounted cash. There is nothing on record to show
the veracity or genuineness of such entries. In fact, the PAO has been
passed on the presumption that 'RS/Ranu/Ranu Mem' mean the
appellant-Ranu Sahu on the basis of meaning given the predicate
offence in the instant ECIR relates to the illegal collection of an additional
Rs. 25 per ton of coal pursuant to the issuance of GO dated 15.07.2020
as it is ED's own case that 15.07.2020 is the date of commission of
predicate offence. On the other hand, the ED has stated that the
appellant has received huge bribe amounts not only in relation to the
illegal levy for coal transportation but also in relation to allocation of DMF
thereby exceeding the scope of the predicate offence and investigating
when no such offence exists for the purposes of the instant ECIR. It is
pertinent to note that no allegations with respect to DMF funds forms
part of the predicate offence. The ED appears to be making baseless
allegations to somehow make out a case against the appellant-Ranu
Sahu. Further, there is no cogent material to link the appellant with the
predicate offence and baselss quantification of the PoC has been made
in relation to the appellant. The ED has failed to show how the alleged
Rs 5.52 Crores partakes the character of 'proceeds of crime' which has
been derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result
23
of criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence. Unless the same is
established, no amount of vague allegations of disproportionate
assets/attaching properties of family members of the appellant-Ranu
Sahu which are entirely unconnected with the proceeds of crime, can
amount to the offence of money laundering. The ED has simply
quantified the proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 5.52 Crores in relation
to the appellant-Ranu Sahu solely on the basis of cryptic entries made
by one Rajnikant Tiwari (brother of Suryakant Tiwari) in handwritten
diaries maintained by him purportedly for unaccounted cash. There is
nothing on record to show the veracity or genuineness of such entries. In
fact, the PAO has been passed on the presumption that RS/Ranu/Ranu
Mem mean the appellant herein on the basis of meaning given to such
terms by a co-accused person who was not the author of the diaries in
his Section 50 statement which is inadmissible. In fact, such entries
have been stated to be fictional and imaginary by Suryakant Tiwari in his
statement dated 01.11.2022 and 03.11.2022 recorded under Section 50
of PMLA. However, the ED has concealed such a material fact before all
forums. As per settled law, the appellant cannot be held liable for any
wrongdoing merely on the basis of entries contained in private diaries
maintained by third parties. There is corroborative material in support of
the truthfulness of any entries in the diary which leads to the conclusion
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant is not
guilty of any offence of money laundering. The learned Appellate
Tribunal failed to appreciate that the presumption of the appellant being
associated with the syndicate run by Suryakant on the basis of alleged
Whatsapp chats with Suryakant Tiwari and Roshan Singh is absolutely
fallacious as the same does not bear any incriminating material so as to
allege involvement of the appellant by way of abetment/facilitation of the
24
alleged predicate offence of illegal coal levy. Without prejudice, at best,
such chats show that the appellant had the purported conversation over
Whatsapp with such persons, and nothing more. Further, the learned
Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that Nikhil Chandraker's
statement under Section 50 of PMLA which the ED has relied upon to
show that collection of cash by him through from a person on behalf of
the appellant is inadmissible, unreliable and coerced. On 14.01.2023,
co-accused Nikhil Chandrakar filed a complaint against ED officials inter
alia stating that the investigating officer had illegally detained him and
that he was forced to sign back dated typed papers, give false
statements against certain persons.
27. Ms. Gupta further would submit that there are fatal contradictions in the
ED's case as on one hand, the ED has based their case against the
appellant-Ranu Sahu on the basis of her being the District Collector of
two highly significant districts for coal production/transportation i.e.
Korba and Raigarh which was June 2021 onwards. This shows that
even though the purported predicate offence may have commenced on
or around 15.07.2020, the appellant's involvement is allegedly seen only
from June 2021 when she became the DC of Korba. In fact, the ED has
relied upon the handwritten entries in the ledger maintained by Rajnikant
Tiwari from October 2021-April 2022 amounting to a total of Rs. 5.52
Crores which has been considered as the proceeds of crime qua the
appellant, and properties amounting to a total of Rs. 5.52 Crores have
been attached vide the 3rd PAO on the basis of such entries. Clearly as
per ED's own case, the generation/acquisition of proceeds of crime by
the appellant, can at best commence from June 2021. It is not the ED's
case that the appellant had aided/facilitated or hatched the conspiracy to
get the GO dated 15.07.2020 issued. However, the ED has fashioned
25
the allegations against the appellant for utilisation of proceeds of crime
by purchase of immovable properties by her family members after
15.07.2020 without being able to show that the appellant was in receipt
of the proceeds of crime before June or October 2021 as per its own
case. This has been done with the sole motive to hide the absence of
nexus between the alleged scheduled offence, the alleged POC, the
alleged PoC having been dealt with by the appellant, and the purported
properties alleged to have been acquired by utilising POC. The
properties attached by the ED as being held benami for the appellant in
relation to ulitisation of PoC by the appellant through her family
members, have all been purchased from a period of 16.07.2020 to
27.08.2021 i.e. all before the first entry of receipt by one RS/Ranu
(alleged to be the appellant) dated 04.10.2021 made in the handwritten
ledger made by Rajnikant Tiwari. There is absolutely no material on
record to connect the appellant to the properties purchased by her
family. In fact, there is nothing to connect such properties to the alleged
PoC which, as per ED's own case, can at best be generated in the
hands of/dealt with by the appellant only after June 2021 i.e. when she
took charge of the District of Korba. However, without any connection of
such properties with the scheduled offence, the ED has presumed a link
and made out a case of utilisation of the alleged proceeds of crime by
the purported purchase of such properties, all of which have been
bought prior to the proceeds having been dealt with by the appellant as
per ED's own case. The learned AA failed to consider that contradictory
stand taken by the ED as on one hand it is alleged that the bribe amount
received by the appellant-Ranu Sahu used to be deposited with
Suryakant Tiwari for safekeeping and the said amount was used as and
when required/directed by the appellant-Ranu Sahu, and on the other
26
hand, without any linkage, the ED has taken a leap to allege that it was
Piyush Sahu, the brother of appellant-Ranu Sahu, who layered the bribe
amounts (totalling to the tune of Rs. 5.52 Crores) in cash through CAs
and entry providers to purchase properties in the name of family
members of the appellant. There is nothing on record to connect the
proceeds received by Suryakant Tiwari (purported PoC) to the tune of
Rs. 5.52 Crores and its alleged utilisation through Piyush Sahu. In fact,
the utilisation appears to predate the receipt of proceeds by Suryakant
Tiwari. As per ED's own case, diary entries show that the alleged PoC
were given by the appellant-Ranu Sahu to Suryakant Tiwari for
safekeeping from October 2021-April 2022. However, the purported
money trail shown by the ED for properties purchased after 15.07.2020
allegedly at the instance of the appellant by her brother Piyush Sahu by
using the PoC (Rs.5.52 Crores) clearly demonstrate that the
commencement of the trail is before the first entry in diary of deposit of
purported bribe money i.e. October 2021. In fact, in most cases the
initiation of the money trail is even prior to the appellant-Ranu Sahu,
joining as the District Collector of Korba in June 2021. Therefore, the
properties attached on the pretext of its involvement in money laundering
have no connection with the purported proceeds of crime, even if ED's
case is considered at its face value. The learned Appellate Tribunal
failed to even record, let alone appreciate this fatal flaw in the case set
up against the appellant. While the ED has hinged its entire case against
the appellant and quantification of PoC around the purported diary
entries, the ED has failed to show nexus between the alleged PoC to the
tune of Rs. 5.52 Crores and the properties purchased by the appellant
and her family members in order to show concealment/layering etc.
27
28. Ms. Gupta would further submit that there is nothing on record to show
any link between properties purchased by the other appellants i.e. the
family members of the appellant-Ranu Sahu and the appellant. In any
case, the independent actions of the family members cannot be
attributed to the appellant-Ranu Sahu for the purposes of the statute
especially when the same is based on presumption and surmises. In any
case, statements recorded of the family members of the appellant herein
does not disclose any financial transaction of any nature whatsoever
between the appellant-Ranu Sahu and her family members. In fact, there
is no material connecting the appellant with any transactions made by
her family members. The appellant has never derived any benefits from
such properties, and therefore, the ED has falsely and baselessly
postured the appellant as purported beneficial owner. The entire case is
based on presumptions such as "...that such huge amount of cash has
been utilized in purchase of land in the name of family, that the cash
could not have come from any other legal business of family", "it is
evidence that cash of huge proportions has been utilized by the Sahu
family in purchase of land and the only source of cash would have been
the bribe money collected by Ms. Ranu Sahu for her active cooperation
in the coal syndicate, "hence the only source of money for purchasing
their properties would have been the bribe money collected by Ms.
Ranu Sahu for her active cooperation in the syndicate" (quotes from
OC). The Appellate Tribunal, without appreciating the material of record,
has mechanically bifurcated the properties belonging to the appellant-
Ranu Sahu and her family members based on its date of purchase. All
properties purchased before 15.07.2020 have been attached as value
thereof and the properties purchased after 15.07.2020 have been
attached as 'direct PoC'. There has been no consideration of the fact the
28
appellant-Ranu Sahu has been linked to the purported predicate offence
as per ED's own case since June 2021, when she became the Collector
of Korba, only after which she could have facilitated the collection of
illegal levy by Suryakant Tiwari and Others, and received bribes in lieu
of such aid. However, the learned Appellate Tribunal has upheld the
erroneous action of learned AA whereby it has confirmed the attachment
of properties as 'Direct PoC' which were bought after 15.07.2020 but
before June 2021 (appointment of appellant as DC Korba) or October
2021 (first diary entry of purported bribe money to be layered). The ECIR
registered by the ED was, along with the FIR in the purported predicate
offence, also based on the report forwarded by the IT Department vide
OM dated 13.09.2022. However, the Prosecution Complaint filed by the
IT Department before JMFC, Special IT Court, Bhopal in the same
matter does not name the appellant-Ranu Sahu herein as an accused. It
is clear that there is no link between the appellant herein with the
purported predicate offence, and the entire case of the ED is plagued
with gaps, contradictions and presumptions.
29. Ms. Gupta would further submit that the provisional attachment order is
legally untenable as there is nothing to show that the appellant was in
possession of PoC. In fact, the purported proceeds have been assumed
on the basis of inadmissible and fictional handwritten diaries maintained
by the brother of Suryakant Tiwari which show cryptic entries of
"incoming" amount from RS/Ranu/Ranu Mem. As per the ED's case, the
diary showed a deposit of Rs. 5.52 crores with Suryakant Tiwari made
by Ranu Sahu for safekeeping of bribe amounts. However, there are no
"outgoing" entries for any amount in the name of RS/Ranu/Ranu Mem.
Therefore, as per ED's own case, even if there was an amount which
was deposited at the instance or by the appellant with Suryakant Tiwari,
29
the same has not been withdrawn/given back to the appellant.
Therefore, it cannot be the case that appellant is in possession of the
proceeds in the first place in order for proceedings under Section 5(1) to
have been initiated by the ED against her. Without any ascertainment of
the proportion of the alleged proceeds of crime being in possession of
each individual whose properties have been attached, the properties
cannot be attached as 'value thereof' as the entire object of attaching
properties based on value equivalent to that of proceeds of crime is
based on the quantum of proceeds held by the person in question.
Therefore, the entire PAO is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
30. Ms. Gupta would further submit that the second proviso of Section 5(1)
PMLA does not contemplate attachment of properties as 'value thereof'.
The present case is one covered under second proviso of Section 5(1)
of PMLA which lays the test for provisional attachment of properties by
the ED in case charge-sheet had not been filed at the time of issuance of
the PAO. It is to be noted that the instant PAO was passed on
08.05.2023 i.e. before the filing of the charge-sheet in the predicate
offence. In any case, the charge-sheet in the purported predicate offence
was only filed on 15.06.2023 under Sections 204 and 353 IPC which are
not scheduled offences. Therefore, the present case is one of
attachment without charge-sheet in the predicate offence, without
prejudice to the contention that it is one of attachment without a
scheduled offence at all. The second proviso of Section 5 (1) of PMLA
states that notwithstanding the first proviso, any property of any person
can be attached if the concerned officer has reason to believe (which
shall be recorded in writing), on the basis of the material in his
possession that if such property involved in money-laundering is not
attached immediately under this chapter, the non-attachment of the
30
property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act. Therefore,
for invoking the second Proviso, it is necessary for the ED to show that
the property being attached is the property involved in money
laundering. It is stated that the 'property involved in money laundering'
does not include any and all properties but only those which are involved
in the process of laundering. The properties which have no link
whatsoever with the 'proceeds of crime' cannot form part of the property
involved in money laundering. Therefore, the second proviso of Section
5(1) of PMLA does not contemplate a situation of attachment of
unconnected properties which have a value equivalent to that of
proceeds of crime as the same cannot be properties involved in
concealment/layering of proceeds of crime. In fact, even the object of the
second proviso is to immediately arrest the process of further laundering
and layering of proceeds which render frustrate the proceedings under
PMLA, and attaching properties as value thereof will be of no
consequence to such object. The PAO in relation to the appellant is
unsustainable as all the properties belonging to the appellant herein
attached vide PAO were purchased much before the commission of the
purported predicate offence, and therefore, the same were admittedly
being attached in the nature of 'value thereof, and not as direct PoC, and
therefore, could not have been attached as 'property involved in money
laundering' under Second proviso of Section 5(1) of PMLA. There is no
'reason to believe' that properties, if not attached immediately, will
frustrate PMLA proceedings. It is the mandate of the PMLA under
second proviso of Section 5(1) of PMLA that the ED is required to have
"reasons to believe" that if the properties are not attached "immediately",
then the entire proceeding under this Act shall get frustrated. No specific
reasons to believe under Section 5(1) of PMLA are given in the PAO for
31
attachment of properties of the appellant which were all purchased prior
to 15.07.2020. It is stated that the PAO contains the purported 'reasons
to believe' under Section 5(1) of PMLA as follows:
a. For attachment of properties in Table A purchased after
15.07.2020 by family members of the appellant on Pages 70- 72 of
PAO;
b. For attachment of properties in Table B purchased after
15.07.2020 by purported benamidars on Pages 77-78 of PAO;
c. For attachment of properties in Table C- purchased prior to
15.07.2020 by the appellant and her family members - no reasons
to believe stated.
31. A perusal of such reasons to believe on the aforestated pages will
demonstrate how the ED does not satisfy the test of second proviso to
Section 5(1) of PMLA in any manner. The learned Appellate Tribunal
failed to appreciate that not only are specific reasons to believe in
relation to the properties belonging to the appellant absent in the PAO,
but the common 'Reasons to believe' for 100 properties belonging to 37
defendants stated in Para 9 of the PAO also does not satisfy the
statutory test. The PAO states as follows:-
"B. The acts of Shri Suryakant Tiwari of selling off the assets,
evasive replies by Ms Ranu Sahu, Mr. Devendra Singh Yadav,
Mr. Vinod Tiwari, Mr. Vaibhav Agrawal, admission by Nikhil
Chandrakar, Devendra Thakur, Satyanarayan Dewangan,
Divyesh Chandrakar regarding using of PoC by Suryakant
Tiwari and not joining of investigation by Roshan Singh and his
wife Pooja Singh clearly provides me with the reason to
believe that properties mentioned in schedule of properties are
proceeds of crime involved in money laundering and are likely
to be transferred or dealt with any manner which may result in
frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such
proceeds of crime, if not attached immediately. The subject
assets may be transferred/disposed of/encumbered without
32
notice of this Directorate either by the Banks or by the parties
and may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to
confiscation of such proceeds of crime."
32. Ms. Gupta would further contend that the learned Appellate Tribunal has
failed to appreciate that there is no allegation of selling off of assets by
either the appellant or any of her family members, unlike that against
Suryakant Tiwari. The perversity of the PAO qua the appellant is evident
from the fact that the second proviso is being invoked in relation to the
appellant on the basis of alleged 'evasive replies' given by her which is
bereft of logic and satisfaction of the statutory compliance. The learned
AA failed to appreciate that there is no averment of any attempt made to
dispose of any property belonging to the appellant by her, and therefore,
no ground for attachment under Section 5(1) is made out. It is clear from
the perusal of the OC that the purported statements recorded by the ED
under Section 50 of PMLA allegedly relevant in relation to the attached
properties belonging to the appellant or her family members were
recorded between October 2022 to January 2023. The 1 st PAO was filed
contemporaneously to such investigation, and the 2 nd PAO was filed
after such investigation. However, none of the properties belonging to
the appellant or her family members was attached vide 1 st or 2nd PAO.
The ED has attached such properties belatedly after four months despite
investigation into the same thereby clearly demonstrating that the ground
for urgency so as to satisfy the test laid under second proviso to Section
5(1) PMLA cannot be stated to be made out. Vide order dated
20.02.2024 passed in the appeal and connected matters before the
learned Appellate Tribunal, possession was directed to remain with the
appellants of the properties attached observing that there was no
exceptional reason for the notice under Section 8(4) PMLA to be issued
to the appellant. Therefore, a case of urgency under second proviso of
33
Section 5(1) could have also not been made out for any of the properties
of the appellant. Ms. Gupta would further submit that the test under the
second provision of Section 8(1) of the PMLA is not satisfied because
the reasons to believe dated 05.06.2023 recorded under Section 8(1) of
PMLA by the learned AA in the instant OC do not even mention the
name of the appellant, let alone recording reasons to believe that the
appellant has either committed the offence of money laundering or is in
possession of proceeds of crime. It is shocking that the learned AA has
issued a show cause notice to the appellant without recording reasons
why the same must be issued to her in the first place. For this reason
alone, the show cause notice along with all consequential proceedings is
liable to be set aside. Recording of 'reason to believe' by the learned AA
is sine qua non for exercising jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of
Section 8 of PMLA. It is settled law that the AA is not supposed to
mechanically issue a show cause notice under Section 8(1) PMLA. The
AA has to apply its mind and again record its reasons to believe,
independent of the reasons recorded by the ED, that any person has
committed an offence under Section 3 PMLA or is in possession of
proceeds of crime. Unless this condition precedent is complied with, the
AA would have no jurisdiction to issue notice under sub- section (1) of
Section 8 upon receipt of complaint under sub-section (5) of Section
The show cause notice issued to the appellant is in complete derogation
of the settled position of law that the learned AA is not merely a rubber
stamp and must independently apply its mind to record the satisfaction
under Section 8(1) of PMLA, failing which the notice along with
consequential proceedings get vitiated. The reasons have to be made
explicit. It is only the reasons that can enable the reviewing authority to
discern how the officer formed his reasons to believe. In support of her
34
contentions, Ms. Gupta places reliance on the decisions rendered by
various High Courts viz. Seema Garg v. Deputy Director, {2020 SCC
OnLine P&H 738}, Excel Powmin Ltd. v. Union of India {2020 SCC
OnLine Cal 384}, J. Sekar v. Union of India, {2018 SCC OnLine Del
6523}, Vanpic Ports Private Limited vs The Deputy Director,
{C.M.S.A. No.6 of 2020 (Telangana High Court.)}. The entire
proceedings are further rendered illegal and unconstitutional being hit by
the vice of coram non-judice as it appears that the Chairperson alone
has conducted the proceedings within the nomenclature of "Adjudicating
Authority". It is apparent from a bare perusal of Section 6(2) of PMLA
that the Adjudicating Authority consists of a Chairperson and two other
members and by virtue of Section 6(5)(a) and (b) thereof, the jurisdiction
of Adjudicating Authority could be exercised only by a Bench constituted
of the Chairperson with one or 2 members and, therefore, the
proceedings conducted by the Chairperson alone without any member
would tantamount to coram non-judice rendering the entire proceedings
to be null and void ab-initio. Further, the presumption under the PMLA is
not applicable to the present cases as the learned Appellate Tribunal
has failed to appreciate that the learned AA has misapplied the law in as
much as it has relied upon the presumption under the Act to shift the
burden of proof on to the appellant herein in light of the law enunciated in
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, {SLP
(Crl.) No. 4634 of 2014, decided on 27.07.2022 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC
929}. In light of para 343 of the said judgment, it is clear that the second
foundation fact necessary for invocation of the legal presumption is that
the property in question should be derived or obtained, directly or
indirectly, as a result of the criminal activity related to scheduled offence
and does not contemplate a case wherein properties attached are in the
35
nature of 'value thereof. In fact, in the present case, the properties in
question are wholly unrelated to the purported predicate offence as the
same were purchased way before the commission of purported
predicate offence, and therefore, the presumption under Section 24
cannot arise. The appellant in her statement under Section 50 of PMLA,
has stated that she has been submitting her Immovable Property Return
as per AIS conduct rules. In any case, there is no allegation of such
properties being derived out of tainted money. The learned Appellate
Tribunal failed to appreciate that the learned AA overlooked that
presumption under Section 24(a) of PMLA can only arise when a person
is 'charged with the offence of money laundering'. In the present case,
even though a Prosecution Complaint has been filed "alleging" the
commission of the offence of money laundering, the appellant herein has
not been charged of the same by the learned Special Court. Therefore,
the presumption under Section 24(a) of PMLA cannot be said to have
arisen in the present case.
33. Placing reliance on the return filed, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-ED would submit that the order
passed by the AA as well as the Appellate Authority is just and proper
warranting no interference. Dr. Pande would submit that during search
and seizure of ITD conducted at the premises of Suryakant Tiwari and
his associates and investigation of the ITD, various evidences were
gathered in the form of handwritten diaries, loose papers and also the
digital evidences. These evidences are of cash transactions related to a
syndicate being operated and coordinated by Suryakant Tiwari along
with his associates and other persons wherein additional unauthorized
cash was being collected over and above the legal amount fixed against
the Delivery Order issued by SECL from various entities who were lifting
36
and transporting the coal throughout the state of Chhattisgarh. An FIR
No. 129/2022 dated 12.07.2022 was registered by Karnataka State
Police, Kadugodi Police Station, Whitefield, Bengaluru invoking therein
Section 186, 204, 353, 384 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
against Suryakant Tiwari and others. It is to be mentioned here that
Section 384 of the IPC was added in the FIR by the Karnataka State
Police vide application dated 03.09.2022. Further, CBDT's Office
Memorandum in F No 289/ED/36/2022-IT (Inv.II) dated 13.09.2022 with
the Subject as 'Sharing of Information with ED in the case of M/s Jai
Ambey Group of Raipur (Suryakant Tiwari Group) has been received
based on the report of DGIT Investigation Bhopal. The OM enclosed an
FIR registered on the complaint of DDIT FAIU Unit-1 Bengaluru by
Bengaluru Police. As per the CBDT's OM, it is informed that Mr.
Suryakant Tiwari in collusion with Chhattisgarh State Government
Officials was carrying out the offences of large-scale illegal extortion
punishable under Section 384 and 120B of IPC and there is a need for
ED to investigate this matter for contravention of Section 3 of PML. Act
2002. Accordingly, ECIR was recorded vide No. ECIR/RPZO/09/2022
dated 29.09.2022. As per the information on record, it was evealed that
collection of illegal levy of Rs.25 per every ton of Coal which was
transported from mines like SECL etc., and other places was being
done. This illegal extortion of 'levy' was being done with the active
connivance of State Mining Officials, District Officials, and by using a
wide network of agents who are stationed in the Coal belt and
maintained a close liaison with the administration. The Delivery Orders
(DO) were issued only after the illegal levy was paid. This extortion
syndicate was being run in a well-planned conspiracy. Mr. Suryakant
Tiwari was assisted by State Govt Officials like Saumya Chaurasia
37
Chhattisgarh Administrative Service Officer, Sameer Vishnoi IAS, and
associates like Rajnikant Tiwari, Roshan Singh, Nikhil Chandrakar,
Sheikh Moinudeen Qureshi, Hemant Jaiswal, Joginder Singh etc. The
money so collected is being used to make bribe payments to the
government servants as well as Politicians. Part of the proceeds was
also being used to funding for election expenditure. Investigation done
so far also reveals that the large part of such money has been channeled
into layered transactions in order to project it as untainted money and
brought into the main stream by investing the same to acquire the
properties & Coal washeries etc. ED investigation revealed that Sameer
Vishnoi, the then Director, Directorate of Mining and Geology,
Chhattisgarh issued a letter dated 15.07.2020 vide which Delivery Order
for coal transportation is required to be verified manually from the
concerned Mining Office and under the guise of the said letter and
instruction for manual verification of DO, Suryakant Tiwari through his
associates started to extort Rs.25 per tonne against the coal
transportation. Suryakant Tiwari deployed several of his associates in
the districts from which coal is mined by SECL in the state of
Chhattisgarh and these persons developed liaisons with Collectorate
office and other agencies. Unless cash @ Rs. 25/tonne of coal
transported was paid to associates of Suryakant Tiwari, the concerned
mining officer in the Collectorate would not issue the requisite transit
pass. All of this was facilitated/coordinated by Suryakant Tiwari with
clout of Saumya Chaurasia and other government officials. Once these
associates of Suryakant Tiwari received the additional charge of Rs. 25
per ton of coal to be transported, message was then communicated to
the Mining Officer and thereafter the delivery orders were cleared for
transport. Thereafter, associates (collection agents deployed at
38
difference places) of Suryakant Tiwari used to maintain data of Coal DO
and payment of illegal levy of Rs.25 per tonne on Coal and after
collection of levy, they used to hand over such cash amount along with
collection data to Rajnikant Tiwari, Nikhil Chandrakar and Roshan
Kumar Singh. Searches were conducted under PMLA at multiple
premises of Suryakant Tiwari, Saumya Chaurasia and their associates
and several incriminating documents/digital devices and valuables i.e.
cash, jewellery, gold etc. were recovered. From the analysis of the
seized documents/digital devices and statement recorded under 50 of
PMLA, 2002, it is evident that this Coal Cartel accumulated PoC to the
tune of Rs. 540 Crore out of extortion from coal transportation and other
levies.
34. Dr. Pande would further submit that the appellant-Ranu Sahu, IAS
worked as Collector of Korba district (most important coal rich Districts)
during the period of the seam and facilitated collection of illegal levy
amounts from the coal transporters by Suryakant Tiwari and his
associates and she had received huge amounts as bribe payments of
Rs. 5.52 Crores approx. from them in return and had deposited the same
with Suryakant Tiwari for safe keeping and layering. ED investigations
have also revealed various irregularities in allotment of tenders of District
Mining Fund (DMF) by . Ranu Sahu, the then District Collector, Korba.
Thus, Ranu Sahu has aided and abetted the coal syndicate run by
Suryakant Tiwari in extorting the illegal levy from the coal transporters as
well as from DMF Contracts and investigation has revealed that she has
received an amount of Rs. 5.52 Crores (Approx.) as her share of the
PoC in coal levy scam and she had laundered her share in the PoC by
purchasing vast immovable properties in her name and in the names of
family members and thus attempted to hide their untainted nature,
39
Hence,Ranu Sahu has committed the offence of money laundering as
defined under Section 3 of PMLA which is punishable under Section 4 of
PMLA. Even if a person who is not accused in the FIR for scheduled
offence can be proceeded against and can be made as an accused
under PMLA, 2002 if any such person is found to have been involved in
any of the activity connected with the process of laundering the
proceeds of crime. In this regard, he places reliance on paragraph 65
the judgment of the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra)
and paragraph 27 of the judgment in Pavana Dibbur v. The
Directorate of Enforcement {Cr.A. No. 2779/2023}.
35. With regard to the contention of not even mention the name of the
appellant in the reason to Believe under Section 8 (1) of PMLA dated
05.06.2023, Dr. Pande would submit that learned AA had formed
reasons to believe, at that initial stage, collectively for all the defendants
of original complaint. On the receipt of complaint from ED, the AA has to
form reasons to believe in a broad manner and it cannot be expected
from the learned AA to express its view in respect of each and every
defendant by weighing all the material produced against them
individually at the stage of issuing notice. The AA had appreciated the
facts as a whole and formed its reasons to believe collectively in respect
of all the defendants of the OC. Registration of scheduled offence is the
sole criteria for initiation for investigation under PMLA. But for the
initiating the process of attachment, the case is otherwise. Reliance is
placed on paragraph 60 of the judgment rendered in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary (supra).
36. Dr. Pande would further submit that in the Charge Sheet filed in FIR No.
129/23 by Karnataka Police, the offence under Section 384 of IPC has
not been closed/dropped. In the Charge Sheet filed before the
40
Jurisdictional Court on 15.06.2023, the Karnataka Police has
categorically mentioned that the offence under Section 384 of IPC was
found to have taken place in the state of Chhattisgarh and that they
would be referring the matter to Chhattisgarh police. Further, Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide judgment dated 14.12.2023 in SLP(Crl.) No.
8847/2023 while rejecting bail application of Saumya Chaurasia, a co-
accused in this case has mentioned in para 26 to 29 that offence under
Section 384 could not be said to have been dropped by the 10 of FIR
No. 129/2022 while submitted the chargesheet in respect of the said FIR
which has further been taken note of by this Hon'ble Court in Sourabh
& Others v. Directorate of Enforcement, {MA No. 34 of 2025, dated
23.07.2025}. A fresh FIR bearing no. 03/2024 dated 17.01.2024 has
been registered by ACB/EOW, Raipur to investigate the Coal Levy
Scam. appellant-Ranu Sahu is one of the accused in this FIR. Since,
Sections invoked in the abovementioned FIR i.e. section 420, 120B of
IPC and section 7, 7A and 12 of PC Act were scheduled offence under
PMLA, the said FIR was incorporated into ongoing ECIR by issuing
addendum. Further, on the basis of contents of chargesheet filed by
Karnataka Police in FIR no. 129/2023 wherein it was mentioned that
offence under Section 384 of IPC was found to be committed in the
State of Chhattisgarh for which report would be sent to Chhattisgarh
police though proper channel, ACB/EOW Raipur incorporated Section
384 of IPC in the above said FIR No. 03/2024.Therefore, the claim of
appellants that no scheduled offence exists in the instant case is
completely false. The scope of money laundering offences has wider and
far-reaching scope that predicate offences and all the persons involved
in offence of money laundering need not necessarily be an accused in
predicate offence. As such property of a person can be attached under
41
PMLA even if the said person is not accused under the scheduled
offence. If during investigation under PMLA, it reveals that a property
has been acquired out of POC, the same can be attached under PMLA
and further, such person need not necessarily be charged for offence of
Money Laundering if there did not exist such evidences to prove that the
person was knowingly involved in activities related to POC. Order
impugned was passed by the learned AA upon affording reasonable and
fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant herein and after taking all the
oral and written submission of both sides into consideration. Dr. Pande
would submit that he impugned order is a well-reasoned speaking order.
It is not the case of the appellants that any failure of justice has ever
been caused to the appellants.
37. Dr. Pande would further submit that with respect to aspect of legality of
sharing of information by ED to the predicate agency's under Section 66
of PMLA, during course of investigation in the instant case, ED had
come across of many cognizable offences which fall within the
jurisdiction of ACB and EOW Chhattisgarh and then the same was being
disclosed by this Directorate under Section 66 (2) of PMLA to ACB and
EOW. Thereafter, ACB and EOW has conducted independent
verification of the disclosure and since a prima facie cognizable offence
was disclosed, ACB & EOW registered an FIR No. 03/2024 under its the
statutory duty. Moreover, this Hon'ble Court in CRMP No. 721/2024 in
the matter of Anil Tuteja & Others v. Union of India & Others, upheld
that ED was legally mandated to share information of commission of
offences to concerned agencies under Section 66 of PMLA and the
Police upon receiving information about commission of cognizable
offence has no option but to mandatory register FIR. There is no violation
of order of any Court of law, instead, the action of the State is complete
42
compliance with the law. He would further submit that Section 66(2) of
the PMLA, 2002 is pari materia with Section 158(1) and Section 158(3)
of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and similarly, with
Section 138(1)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These provisions,
found across these respective Acts, impose an obligation to share
information with other officers, authorities, or bodies for the purpose of
enabling them to perform their functions under the respective law. The
legislative intent across these provisions remains consistent: i.e., to
allow for the effective flow of information between authorities in
furtherance of law enforcement. A 5-Judge bench of the Apex Court, in
A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, {(1984) 2 SCC 500} had
observed that anyone can set or put the criminal law in motion except
where the statute indicates to the contrary. The object of Section 66(2)
of PMLA 2002 is in consonance with the observations of the
Constitutional Bench. The consideration under the Section 5(1) operates
at a distinct and anterior stage, namely at the time of issuance of the
PAO, based on the material then available indicating likelihood of
concealment, transfer or dealing with the proceeds of crime. Subsequent
directions regarding possession under Section 8(4) or observations
made by the Appellate Tribunal in that context do not retrospectively
invalidate the formation of satisfaction or urgency recorded at the stage
of provisional attachment. The statutory powers exercised under Section
5(1) and Section 8 operate in different fields, and reliance on
possession-related observations cannot render the PAO illegal or
arbitrary. The learned Appellate Tribunal has analysed each and every
fact at greater length and consequent upon that passed its order dated
16.10.2025 in a very comprehensive manner. In the said order, learned
Appellate Tribunal has discussed at length about each property in
43
question of respective appellant and rebutted all fabricated allegation
made by them. Thus, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the
appellants citing that they do not find any substances
38. Dr. Pandey would next submit that the investigation has proven that
Ranu Sahu was involved in the offence of money laundering and actively
assisted in the smooth functioning of coal cartel and in turn was getting
part of the PoC collected by the cartel as bribe. The active involvement
of Ranu Sahu in the coal syndicate and acquisition of PoC by her has
been established from WhatsApp chats extracted from seized digital
devices which were further corroborated by hand written diaries seized
from the possession of members of coal cartel and also by statements of
Nikhil Chandrakar and Roshan Kumar Singh, both associates of
Suryakant Tiwari who had extensive knowledge about the modus of
scam as well as beneficiaries of the scam. The hand written diaries
contained detailed record of illegal incoming and subsequent
expenditure of ill-gotten cash and it also contained the details of PoC
transferred to Ranu Sanu. Investigation also proved that Ms. Ranu Sahu
received PoC of Rs. 5.52 crore out of the total PoC of Rs. 540 crores
collected from coal transporters. Further, investigation had also revealed
that appellant-Ranu Sahu was not only professionally but also personally
very close to the main accused Suryakant Tiwari and the part of the
proceeds of crime earned by coal cartel was given to Smt. Ranu Sahu
as bribe and she in turn from the point of additional safety for herself as
well as for safe keeping of cash so given to her, kept it with Suryakant
Tiwari. Such cash kept with Suryakant Tiwari was utilized for the benefit
of . Ranu Sahu in purchase of properties in the name of her family
member as per her direction. Ranu Sahu has acquired benami
properties in the name of her family members, relatives and unrelated
44
tribals and these properties were purchased out of illegal cash received
from the coal cartel. Role of . Ranu Sahu in acquisition of PoC as well as
its utilization in properties with the help of entry providers in the name of
her family members was also corroborated not only by diary entries but
also by statement of multiple persons including the persons who
provided entry of white money in lieu of cash amount, WhatsApp chats
etc. In this case, an organized syndicate comprising politicians,
bureaucrats and private individuals had extorted cash amount to the
tune of Rs. 540 Crores from various businessmen of Coal, Cement,
Steel, Iron Pellets, District Mineral Fund Contracts etc. during the period
from July, 2020 to June, 2022. The entire State machinery i.e. District
Administration, Mining Department, State Police, State GST
Department, Environment Department, Labour Department etc. was
involved in the conspiracy of extortion and implement of the scam and
instead of stopping Suryakant Tiwari's team, the machinery was
assisting the team to execute the scam. The State GST Department also
played an important role in implementation of the extortion plan and in
acquisition of the Proceeds of Crime by way of pressuring the
businessmen who did not bend to the will of cartel. Ranu Sahu was also
posted as Commissioner of Chhattisgarh State GST Department during
the first one year of extortion period. Hence, . Ranu Sahu IAS not only
being District Collector, Korba and Raigarh has facilitated the coal cartel
but also being Commissioner of Chhattisgarh State GST Department,
has facilitated the cartel in implement of extortion system and in return
got a part of PoC for herself. Further, analysis of the ITRs, it is
established that the properties owned by family members of Ranu Sahu
are disproportionate with their income mentioned in ITRs in that period.
For purchase of properties, the cash was used at two levels, first the
45
cheque payments made against purchase of the properties were
arranged by CAs and entry providers against cash and second, cash
amount was paid to seller over and above the consideration amount.
Further, appellant-Piyush Sahu in his statements recorded under
Section 50 of PMLA stated that she had arranged bank entries for him
and his family members in the guise of unsecured loans from different
entities, however, he did not know such persons personally nor did he
enter into any written agreement/document with the 'so-called loan
providers (entry providers) and also, he did not mortgage any valuables
against the unsecured loans. Some entry providers in their statements
recorded under Section 50 of PMLA also admitted that on pursuance of
Manish Nankani, CA of Piyush Sahu, and Piyush Sahu himself they
transfer money in the bank account of Piyush Sahu and his family
members and in return they received some percentage of commission
for that transaction. Aforesaid facts clear the picture about active
involvement of Ranu Sahu in the coal levy scam, her receipt of the PoC
and utilization of such PoC for acquisition of immovable properties in the
name of her family members and even in the name of some tribal person
in benami form. The learned Appellate Tribunal as well as the AA had
carefully considered the facts put forth by both the parties and after due
application of mind passed a well-reasoned and speaking orders
respectively. While judicial or quasi-judicial authorities may adopt a
structured format for clarity and consistency, this does not render an
order arbitrary, mechanical, or non-speaking. What matters is that the
authority has considered the material on record (OC, rejoinder before
the learend AA, reply before the learned Appellate Tribunal), examined
the submissions, and applied its mind to the facts and law before
arriving at the findings. The adoption of a consistent format or language
46
across multiple orders is a matter of administrative efficiency and does
not vitiate the statutory exercise of jurisdiction or the reasoning
contained in the order. Therefore, the allegation of mere "templating"
cannot invalidate or undermine the impugned order and is devoid of
merit. It is not the case of the appellant that there arises some failure of
justice during the proceedings. The appellant had been given ample
opportunity to raise her contentions. Reliance placed by the appellants
on the order dated 22.03.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in WP(C) No. 5744/2022. State Bank of India v. Directorate of
Enforcement, is wholly misconceived and misplaced as the said order
was rendered in the facts and circumstances peculiar to that case and
does not lay down any absolute proposition of law to the effect that all
orders containing similar or identical language are illegal or void. In the
present case, the impugned order has been passed after due and
independent application of mind to the facts of the case, the material
placed on record, and the evidence produced before the learned AA and
therefore does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The learned AA has
fully discharged the statutory obligation cast upon it under Section 8(2)
of the PMLA by duly considering the material placed before it and by
arriving at a satisfaction that the properties in question are involved in
money laundering. The impugned Order clearly records the existence of
proceeds of crime, their connection with the scheduled offence, how the
appellants and the properties in question are linked to money-laundering
activities. The appellants are seeking a re-examination of facts under the
guise of alleging procedural defects, which is not permissible in
appellate proceedings. The Appellate Tribunal, in its Order dated
16.10.2025 clearly upheld that there cannot be debate on the
Notification dated 15.07.2020 and posting time of instant appellant-Ranu
47
Sahu in Korba. The said Notification was issued much prior to the
posting of the appellant-Ranu Sahu but it would not absolve her from
offence of Money Laundering because the appellant remained
beneficiary of the Notification even during the period she remained
posted in District Korba. The learned AA as well as the learned
Appellate Tribunal, has discussed in detail as to how the appellants had
come to acquire the PoC from coal cartel and how the said PoC was
utilised for purchasing immovable properties in the name appellant-Ranu
Sahu and her family members by way of laundering the PoC with the
help of entry providers. The PoC was laundered and finally integrated
into the financial system by acquisition of immovable properties in the
name of appellant's family members and the same were projected as
untainted. Therefore, the attachment of impugned properties belonging
to appellant is within the scope of PMLA. The appellant-Ranu Sahu is
also an accused in the DMF Scam which is worth more than Rs. 90
Crores. The appellant-Ranu Sahu has been arraigned as an accused in
DMF scam also. The entries made in the diaries seized have been
independently corroborated by statements of Nikhil Chandrakar and
Roshan Kumar Singh who are integral part of coal cartel and had
extensive knowledge about the modus operandi of the scam as well as
about the beneficiaries of the scam. Both these persons have separately
validated the entries marked in the diaries in the name of appellant.
Receipt of PoC by the appellant is also corroborated with WhatsApp
chat extracted from digital devices. The statements of above said
persons have been taken under Section 50 of the PMLA and in Rohit
Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 50 statements are admissible in
evidence and may make out a formidable case about the involvement of
48
the accused in the commission of the offence of money laundering. With
regard to the statement of Suryakant Tiwari, he was the main accused of
the case as well as active member of a political party and had much to
lose if had stated the truth about the validity of diary entries. Even a
cursory perusal of Suryakant's statement is enough to show that he was
giving fictitious answers about the diary entries as when he was cross
questioned about his submission that how he could identify real entries
from fake entries, Suryakant had no answer. Further, ED understands
that mere diary entries have no meaning till they are independently
corroborated. Therefore, ED is conscious of the legal position that diary
entries by themselves have no evidentiary value unless independently
corroborated. Accordingly, the ED verified the diary entries by examining
seized WhatsApp chats, statements recorded under Section 50 of the
PMLA, 2002, sale deed documents, and bank transactions. Only upon
such independent corroboration did the ED arrive at the conclusion that
the diary entries are genuine and correctly reflect the illegal extortion
proceeds and their utilization. Thus, the investigation conducted to
authenticate the diary entries as described in the concerned Original
Complaint, involved recording statements recorded under Section 50 of
PMLA, 2002 and analysis of the relevant bank account statements,
analysis of the land deals, etc and it is established that the entries in the
diary are indeed true account of transactions undertaken in respect of
appellant herein. With regard to complaint of Nikhil Chandrakar alleging
coercion into signing false statement, the nature of statement of Nikhil
Chandrakar was informatory and not confessionary. Several individuals
in the Chhattisgarh State machinery were involved in the conspiracy of
extortion and instead of stopping Suryakant Tiwari's team, they were
assisting the team to execute the conspiracy. The witnesses & accused
49
persons who have helped in exposing the modus of this syndicate, have
been pressurized and threatened to retract their Statements in order to
derail the investigation under PMLA, 2002 by the respondent
Department. During the course of investigation, the respondent ED has
discovered immovable property worth Rs. 4.70 Crore and the same has
been duly attached vide OC 1988 as direct PoC after following due
process. Further, after exercising due diligence, the remaining direct
PoC has not been discovered at that relevant point of time, therefore the
immovable property worth Rs.82.05 lakh has been attached under value
thereof. The appellants had come to acquire the PoC from coal cartel
and how the said PoC was utilised for purchasing immovable properties
in the name of family members of appellant herein by way of laundering
the proceeds of Crime with the help of entry providers. The PoC was
laundered and finally integrated into the financial system by acquisition
of immovable properties in the name of appellant's family members and
the same were projected as untainted. Therefore, the attachment of
impugned properties belonging to appellant is within the scope of PMLA
and the Appellate Tribunal upheld the attachment and Order dated
09.10.2023 of AA, vide its Order dated 16.10.2025.
39. Dr. Pandey would submit that with regard to the law of attachment of
property under "equivalent value thereof is concerned, the attachment of
Equivalent Value of property is lawful. Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA defines
"proceeds of crime" to include not just the direct property obtained from
the crime but also any property of equivalent value. If the tainted
property is not available, substituted attachment is legally valid, as
upheld in Vijay Madantal Choudhary (supra), Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement v. Axis Bank & Ors. ((2019 SCC OnLine
Del 7854}, Prakash Industries Ltd., & Anr., v. Directorate of
50
Enforcement, {W.P. (C) No. 14999 of 2021}. Furthermore, the
Appellate Tribunal in Kishore Kumar v. The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement, Bengaluru, clarified that properties
acquired prior to the enforcement of the PMLA are not immune from
attachment if they are equivalent in value to the proceeds of crime. The
Tribunal noted that the expression "proceeds of crime" includes both
tainted and untainted property, provided the latter is of equivalent value
to the former. Further, the Appellate Tribunal in Ayush Kejriwal v.
Enforcement Directorate (Case No. FPA-PMLA-4358/KOL/2021,
order dated 01.05.2024) ruled that when assets acquired from criminal
activity relating to a scheduled offence i.e. misappropriated bank funds
are untraceable, then any property of the accused, equivalent to the
value of the misappropriated funds, can be attached. This attachment
applies regardless of whether the property was acquired using
misappropriated funds or was purchased with legally obtained funds
even before the registration of the FIR. This judgment underscores that
even assets legally acquired before the commission of scheduled
offence or FIR registration can be seized if the proceeds of the crime
cannot be traced.
40. Dr. Pande further would submit that the co-accused Suryakant Tiwari
had already made attempt to alienate various properties acquired out of
PoC by transferring them in the name of other persons on paper only. It
was done after commencement of investigation into this matter and after
searches conducted on the premises of accused by Income tax
Department. Due to such conduct of co-accused person, who was a
professional associate as well as a close personal friend of appellant,
there was a strong apprehension that impugned property might also be
disposed of by the appellant in some manner or third-party interest may
51
be created on the properties just as to evade their attachment by the
law. He would further submit that having a reason to believe that the
properties may be disposed of is enough for attachment. The
respondent cannot be expected to wait until at least one of the properties
is actually disposed of by the accused persons. The properties of Ms.
Ranu Sahu had been categorized in three category and mentioned in
table A, B and C of PAO 02/2023 dated 08.05.2023. Reasons to believe
for attaching properties in table A and B are mentioned in page no. 70-
72 and 77-79 of PAO. Further, with respect to properties mentioned in
table C which were acquired prior to crime period were attached under
clause 'value thereof. Further, a comprehensive reasons to believe in
terms of second proviso to sub section 1 of section 5 of PMLA covering
all the properties that were attached in PAO dated 08.05.2023 has been
recorded on page no. 189-190 of PAO. Thus, the claim of appellant-
Ranu Sahu regarding not satisfying the second proviso of section 5(1) of
PMLA stands refuted. The learned AA had formed reasons to believe
collectively for all the defendants. At receipt of complaint from ED, the
AA has to form reasons to believe in a broad manner and it cannot be
expected from the learned authority to express its view in respect of
each and every defendant by weighing all the material produced against
them individually. The AA had appreciated the facts as a whole and
formed its reasons to believe collectively in respect of all the defendants
of the OC. With respect to the issue of coram of the learned AA is no
longer res integra as the Hon'ble Madras High Court in
G Gopalakrishnan v. Deputy Director {W.P.(MD) Nos. 11454} has in
unequivocal terms held that even single member Benches of the
Adjudicating Authority would adjudicating disputes under PMLA. Dr.
Pandey would submit that investigation has established the generation
52
of PoC from commission of scheduled offence by the coal cartel and
acquisition of PoC worth Rs. 5.52 crores by the appellant from the coal
cartel and conversion of the same into immovable properties in the name
of her family members with the help of entry providers who provided
entry in the bank accounts of family members against the cash of
appellant. Appellants are the actual owner of those immovable
properties as they were paid for using PoC acquired by the appellants.
Thus, there is clear cut case where the appellants had obtained several
properties which were purchased by PoC generated by scheduled
offence. Therefore, all the fundamental facts as enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary (supra)
are properly fulfilled in the case of appellant. The appellant-Ranu Sahu is
a high-ranking officer and well aware of the Government rules and
regulations and therefore, she deliberately did not acquire any property
in her name during crime period to avoid any action from Government.
She infused the PoC acquired by her for purchasing properties in the
name of her family members i.e. the other appellants so that need for
intimating those properties in her IPR may not arise. In view of the said
submissions, Dr. Pande would submit that the appellants have not made
their case which may entitle them to claim any relief and these appeals
deserve to be dismissed at the threshold. Similar submissions have
been advanced by Dr. Pande with respect to other appellants who are
the near relatives of appellant-Ranu Sahu. None of the other appellants
have been able to satisfy as to from which sources of income the
properties were purchased in their names.
41. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the
pleadings and materials available on record. We have also carefully
gone through the Confirmation Order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the
53
learned AA and the order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal on
16.10.2025, impugned herein.
42. In nutshell, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant(s) is that
the properties acquired by the appellants including Ranu Sahu, even
before the relevant time when the appellant-Ranu Sahu was posted as
Collector, Korba, and which properties have been duly intimated to the
authorities of the State, have also been attached by the ED holding it to
have been acquired from the PoC. Before being posted at Korba as
District Collector, the appellant-Ranu Sahu was posted as
Commissioner, GST and the offence related to Coal Scam which had no
connection with the GST Department. It is also the contention of Ms.
Gupta that the learned Appellate Tribunal, while deciding the appeal of
the appellants, has, without any basis assumed that the appellants had
adopted the submissions advanced by the counsel for the co-accused
Suryakant Tiwari and proceeded to consider and decide their cases. It is
also the contention of Ms. Gupta that except for the diary entries, there is
nothing on record to connect the appellants with the crime in question.
There is no evidence or likelihood of the appellants that they have tried
to dispose of the properties which are in their names and as such, the
attachment order was unintended and unwarranted. Coal is found in
surplus in the State of Chhattisgarh and in many Districts but the ED has
cherry picked the appellant-Ranu Sahu and none of the Collectors of
other Districts have been made accused. Even the ED has not been able
to establish the money trail. Even some of the properties of the
appellants have been confiscated. Specific reference is made to
Annexure A/14 of the appeal {MA No. 26/2026} which is a property chart
which shows the properties before 15.07.2020 belonging to the
54
appellant-Ranu Sahu and other members of the family and the
properties acquired after 15.07.2020.
43. Before proceeding with the matter, it would be apposite to state that
similar appeals were filed by other co-accused persons namely Sourabh
Modi, Shanti Devi Chaurasiya, Anurag Chaurasia, M/s. Indermani
Mneral India Pvt. Ltd., M/s. KJSL Coal & Power Ltd., Divya Tiwari,
Kailash Tiwari, Rajnikant Tiwari, Suryakant Tiwari, and Sameer Vishnoi
being MA No. 34/2025 and other connected matters, all of which stood
dismissed vide judgment dated 23.07.2025, by this Court wherein also,
the order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, affirming the order of
attachment passed by the learned AA was under challenge. They are
also the co-accused of the same offence as involved herein.
44. It would be beneficial to quote some of the relevant provisions of the
PMLA for better understanding of the issues. The offence of money
laundering has been defined under Section 3 of the PMLA, which reads
as under:
"2. Definitions. - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires, -
xxx xxx xxx
(u) "Proceeds of crime'" means any property derived or obtained,
directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity
relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property
or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then
the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad;
Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that
"proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained
from the scheduled offence but also any property which may
directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any
criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence;
xxx xxx xxx
3. Offence of money-laundering.--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,
55
possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as
untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.
Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified
that,--
(i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if such
person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge
or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually
involved in one or more of the following processes or activities
connected with proceeds of crime, namely:--
(a) concealment; or
(b) possession; or
(c) acquisition; or
(d) use; or
(e) projecting as untainted property; or
(f) claiming as untainted property,
in any manner whatsoever;
(ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a
continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly
or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or
possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted
property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner
whatsoever."
45. Attachment, adjudication and confiscation of property involved in money-
laundering is provided in Section 5 under Chapter III of the PMLA which
reads as under:
"5. Attachment of property involved in money-
laundering.--(1)Where the Director or any other officer not
below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by the Director
for the purposes of this section, has reason to believe (the
reason for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the
basis of material in his possession, that--
(a) any person is in possession of any proceeds of
crime; and
(b) such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed,
transferred or dealt with in any manner which may
result in frustrating any proceedings relating to
confiscation of such proceeds of crime under this
Chapter,
he may, by order in writing, provisionally attach such
property for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty
56
days from the date of the order, in such manner as may be
prescribed:
Provided that no such order of attachment shall be made
unless, in relation to the scheduled offence, a report has
been forwarded to a Magistrate under section 173 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or a
complaint has been filed by a person authorised to
investigate the offence mentioned in that Schedule, before a
Magistrate or court for taking cognizance of the scheduled
offence, as the case may be, or a similar report or
complaint has been made or filed under the corresponding
law of any other country:
Provided further that, notwithstanding anything contained in
first proviso, any property of any person may be attached
under this section if the Director or any other officer
notbelow the rank of Deputy Director authorised by him for
the purposes of this section has reason to believe (the
reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the
basis of material in his possession, that if such property
involved in money-laundering is not attached immediately
under this Chapter, the non-attachment of the property is
likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act.
Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period
of one hundred and eighty days, the period during which
the proceedings under this section is stayed by the High
Court, shall be excluded and a further period not exceeding
thirty days from the date of order of vacation of such stay
order shall be counted;
(2) The Director, or any other officer not below the rank of
Deputy Director, shall, immediately after attachment under
sub-section (1), forward a copy of the order, along with the
material in his possession, referred to in that sub-section, to
the Adjudicating Authority, in a sealed envelope, in the
manner as may be prescribed and such Adjudicating
Authority shall keep such order and material for such period
as may be prescribed. (3) Every order of attachment made
under sub-section (1) shall cease to have effect after the
expiry of the period specified in that sub-section or on the
date of an order made under 3 [sub-section (3)] of section
8, whichever is earlier.
(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the person
interested in the enjoyment of the immovable property
attached under sub-section (1) from such enjoyment.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, "person
interested", in relation to any immovable property, includes
all persons claiming or entitled to claim any interest in the
property.
57
(5) The Director or any other officer who provisionally
attaches any property under sub-section (1) shall, within a
period of thirty days from such attachment, file a complaint
stating the facts of such attachment before the Adjudicating
Authority."
46. The AA, under Section 5(1) read with Section 8(1) of the PMLA is only
required to form a reason to believe, based on the material in
possession, that the property is involved in money laundering. Such
belief need not be based on direct evidence but can be drawn from
circumstantial indicators. The OC filed by the ED is quite exhaustive and
contains relevant materials which appear to be sufficient to form a
reason to believe.
47. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), the Apex Court observed as
under:
"60. As a matter of fact, prior to amendment of 2015, the
first proviso acted as an impediment for taking such
urgent measure even by the authorised officer, who is no
less than the rank of Deputy Director. We must hasten to
add that the nuanced distinction must be kept in mind that
to initiate "prosecution" for offence under Section 3 of the
Act registration of scheduled offence is a prerequisite, but
for initiating action of "provisional attachment" under
Section 5 there need not be a pre-registered criminal
case in connection with scheduled offence. This is
because the machinery provisions cannot be construed in
a manner which would eventually frustrate the
proceedings under the 2002 Act. Such dispensation
alone can secure the proceeds of crime including prevent
and regulate the commission of offence of money-
laundering. The authorised officer would, thus, be
expected to and, also in a given case, justified in acting
with utmost speed to ensure that the proceeds of
crime/property is available for being proceeded with
appropriately under the 2002 Act so as not to frustrate
any proceedings envisaged by the 2002 Act. In case the
scheduled offence is not already registered by the
jurisdictional police or complaint filed before the
Magistrate, it is open to the authorised officer to still
proceed under Section 5 of the 2002 Act whilst
contemporaneously sending information to the
jurisdictional police under Section 66(2) of the 2002 Act
58
for registering FIR in respect of cognizable offence or
report regarding non-cognizable offence and if the
jurisdictional police fails to respond appropriately to such
information, the authorised officer under the 2002 Act can
take recourse to appropriate remedy, as may be
permissible in law to ensure that the culprits do not go
unpunished and the proceeds of crime are secured and
dealt with as per the dispensation provided for in the
2002 Act. Suffice it to observe that the amendment
effected in 2015 in the second proviso has reasonable
nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the 2002
Act.
xxx xxx xxx
65. As aforesaid, in this backdrop the amendment Act 2
of 2013 came into being. Considering the purport of the
amended provisions and the experience of
implementing/enforcement agencies, further changes
became necessary to strengthen the mechanism
regarding prevention of money-laundering. It is not right in
assuming that the attachment of property (provisional)
under the second proviso, as amended, has no link with
the scheduled offence. Inasmuch as Section 5(1)
envisages that such an action can be initiated only on the
basis of material in possession of the authorised officer
indicative of any person being in possession of proceeds
of crime. The precondition for being proceeds of crime is
that the property has been derived or obtained, directly or
indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity
relating to a scheduled offence. The sweep of Section
5(1) is not limited to the accused named in the criminal
activity relating to a scheduled offence. It would apply to
any person (not necessarily being accused in the
scheduled offence), if he is involved in any process or
activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Such a
person besides facing the consequence of provisional
attachment order, may end up in being named as
accused in the complaint to be filed by the authorised
officer concerning offence under Section 3 of the 2002
Act."
48. In Pavana Dibbur (supra), the Apex Court observed as under:
"27. While we reject the first and second submissions
canvassed by the learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellant, the third submission must be upheld. Our
conclusions are:
a) It is not necessary that a person against whom
the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged,
59
must have been shown as the accused in the
scheduled offences;
...."
49. Section 22 of the PMLA is in respect of presumption as to records or
property in certain case. It reads as under:
"22. Presumption as to records or property in certain
cases.-(1) Where any records or property are or is found in the
possession or control of any person in the course of a survey
or a search for where any record or property is produced by
any person or has been resumed or seized from the custody or
control of any person or has been frozen under this Act or
under any other law for the time being in force, it shall be
presumed that-
(i) such records or property belong or belongs to such person;
(ii) the contents of such records are true; and
(iii) the signature and every other part of such records which
purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or
which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or
to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that
person's handwriting, and in the case of a record, stamped,
executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the
person by whom it purports to have been so stamped,
executed or attested...."
50. Section 23 is in respect of presumption in inter-connected transactions.
The same reads as under:
"23. Presumption in inter connected transactions. - Where
money laundering involves two or more inter-connected
transactions and one or more such transactions is o are proved
to be involved in money-laundering , then for the purpose of
adjudication or confiscation under Section 8 or for the trial of
the money-laundering offence, it shall unless otherwise proved
to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or the Special
Court, be presumed that the remaining transactions form part of
such inter-connected transactions."
51. In the present case, the chain of events, including financial transactions,
lack of legitimate sources of income, and links to the scheduled offence,
establishes a prima facie case that the attached property represents
proceeds of crime. The purpose of attachment under the PMLA is a
preventive measure to ensure that the property is not alienated or
60
disposed of during the course of investigation and trial. It is not a final
determination of guilt but a step to preserve the property suspected to be
involved in money laundering. It is well-settled that offences under the
PMLA are of a distinct nature where the PoC are often concealed
through layered transactions and indirect modes. Direct evidence is
seldom available in such cases, and the determination of the proceeds
of crime often rests on circumstantial evidence and the analysis of
financial trails.
52. Section 24 of the PMLA is with regard to burden of proof. It states that in
any proceeding related to proceeds of crime under this Act, (a) in the
case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under
Section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved,
presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering;
and (b) in the case of any other person the Authority or Court, may
presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering.
Once the property is identified as involved in money laundering, the
burden shifts on the accused to prove that the property is not proceeds
of crime. In the present case, the appellants have not discharged this
burden satisfactorily.
53. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that search and seizure was
conducted at the premises of appellant-Suryakant Tiwari and associates
in which various evidences were gathered in the form of handwritten
diaries, loose papers and also digital evidences of cash transactions
related to a syndicate being operated and coordinated by Surayakant
Tiwari and his associates. The allegations levelled against the appellant-
Ranu Sahu are very serious in nature and the entire offence is an
example of organized crime. Sameer Vishnoi was the then Director,
Directorate of Geology and Mining, Chhattisgarh who had issued letter
61
dated 15.07.2020 by which delivery order for coal transportation was
required to be verified manually from the concerned Mining Office and
under the guise of the said letter and instruction for manual verification of
DO, Suryakant Tiwari through his associates started extorting Rs. 25 per
tonne of coal against the coal transportation. Various government
officials assisted in the said offence. From the PoC, the accused persons
have been benefited and they have acquired properties and when the
ITD conducted the raid, the accused became alert and started disposing
of their properties through sham transactions. The respondent/ED filed
the OC before the learned AA and the learned AA after issuance of
notice to the accused and the appellants, and after considering the
replies to the show cause notices, passed the Confirmation Order
confirming the PAO passed by the ED.
54. The submissions advanced before this Court were also advanced before
the learned AA as well as the learned Appellate Tribunal and the said
submissions have been discussed by the AA as well as the learned
Appellate Tribunal and as such, it cannot be said that the orders were
passed without application of mind. The order passed by the learned AA
is quite detailed one and so is the order passed by the Appellate
Tribunal. The details with regard to the incriminating materials have
been discussed and only after that, the orders impugned herein, has
been passed. An AA forms his opinion to proceed with adjudication
proceedings based on the materials adduced by the complainant and
the same is communicated to the appellants by way of show cause
notice alongwith the reasons to form such opinion.
55. The offence of money laundering basically involves three things, namely
the placement, layering and integration. Placement is the initial stage
where illicit money (often called "dirty money") is introduced into the
62
financial system. The goal is to move the money away from its source
without raising suspicion. The most common techniques include
depositing small amounts into bank accounts (smurfing), using cash to
buy valuable assets like jewelry, art, or real estate and mixing illegal
proceeds with legitimate business income (e.g., cash-intensive
businesses). The second stage i.e. layering involves complex layers of
financial transactions to obscure the origin of the money. The purpose is
to make the money trail hard to trace, such as transferring funds
between multiple accounts (often across borders), using shell
companies and offshore accounts, purchasing and selling financial
instruments. The third stage is the integration and in this final stage, the
laundered money is reintroduced into the legitimate economy, appearing
as clean, legitimate income which includes investing in legal businesses,
buying high-value goods or property and creating fake invoices and
business transactions. These stages are often interlinked and may
overlap depending on the complexity of the laundering scheme.
56. With regard to the issue of coram of learned AA, the said issue is no
longer res integra. The Madras High Court in G.Gopalakrishnan
(supra) has in unequivocal terms held that even a single member Bench
of the Adjudicating Authority could adjudicate the disputes under PMLA.
In fact, in the decision of the Delhi High Court in "J. Sekar (supra) it was
held that less than three Member Adjudicating Authority is permissible
under PMLA. The Hon'ble Madras High Court has also clearly held that
it is not mandatory that such Single Member Benches should comprise
of Judicial members and even administrative members constituting
Single Member Benches of the Tribunal would amount to sufficient
compliance of the law.
63
57. It is not important that the accused person should be directly involved
and commit the crime but an offence under the PMLA is also made out if
the person is accused of layering and integration of the PoC.
58. The learned Appellate Tribunal has separately analysed every allegation
made by and against each accused at greater length and consequent
upon that passed its order dated 16.10.2025. The learned Appellate
Tribunal has discussed at length about each property in question of
respective appellant and rebutted all fabricated allegation made by
them. After that only, the learned Appellate Tribunal dismissed the
appeals of the appellants citing they do not find a case to cause
interference in the impugned order of the learned AA. The AA forms his
opinion to proceed with adjudication proceedings based on the material
adduced by the complaint and the same was communicated to the
appellants by way of show cause notices along with reasons to form
such opinion and same were also provided to the appellant. The AA
decided the matter by passing a speaking order only after hearing both
the sides and after taking consideration, both the oral and written
submissions.
59. The allegation with regard to absence of predicate offence is noticed to
be rejected as similar submission was raised in case of Saumya
Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement in Cr.A. No. 2840/2023
decided on 14.12.2023. The learned Appellate Tribunal has quoted
paragraphs 26 to 30 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the
appeal. The Hon'ble Apex Court did not consider it to be a case of
dropping of the offence under Section 384 IPC. The Special Court of
Karnataka had made a reference to request the State Police to transfer
the offence under Section 384 of the IPC to the Chhattisgarh State
Police upon which the FIR was registered by the Chhattisgarh Police
64
which was not only for the offence referred in the FIR but was with the
addition of the offences under the PC Act and other scheduled offences.
The observations made by the learned Appellate Tribunal vide
paragraphs 29 and 30 are reasoned one and we concur with the same.
60. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants is that
the entire case of the ED is based on uncorroborated diary entries which
have no sanctity in law. This Court basically has to see whether the
provisions of the PMLA has been complied with or not before passing
the PAO. From perusal of the materials available on record, we are fully
satisfied that the learned AA as well as the learned Appellate Tribunal
was justified in passing the Confirmation Order as well as the impugned
order. This Court cannot do the arithmetic with respect to each single
penny received and invested by the appellants but has to see whether
the appellants could give any plausible explanation with regard to the
transactions and how the finance was made available for the said
transactions.
61. The nexus between the appellant(s) and the alleged PoC is also well
established. It is the say of the appellants that they had duly informed the
source for acquisition of the property in question and as such, the orders
passed by the AA as well as the Appellate Tribunal is erroneous. In the
case in hand, the FIR was lodged after prima facie disclosure of
commission of offence, but the offence was committed much earlier to
registration of the ECIR and the FIR. The syndicate could not have
extorted the money in a day or two but was a continuous process and it
is a matter of investigation as to on which date the said extortion started.
Further, even if any properties were acquired by the appellants prior to
the date of commission of the crime, those properties can also be made
the subject matter of attachment if the proceeds are not available or
65
vanished. The learned Appellate Tribunal has cited its own order passed
in Shri Sadananda Nayak v. Directorate of Enforcement,
Bhubaneshwar (Appeal No. 5612/2023). At the cost of repetition, it
would be beneficial to quote the relevant paragraphs which reads as
under:
"22. It has already been clarified by us that if the definition of
"proceeds of crime" is given interpretation by dividing it into two
parts or by taking only two limbs, then it would be easy for the
accused to siphon off or vanish the proceeds immediately after the
commission of scheduled offence and in that case none of his
properties could be attached to secure the interest of the victim till
conclusion of the trial. This would not only frustrate the object of
the Act of 2002, but would advance the cause of the accused to
promote the crime of money laundering. The Judgment in the case
of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary (supra) is of three judges bench
while the judgment in the case of Pavana Dibur (supra) is of two
judges bench. The issue has otherwise been dealt with by this
Tribunal in the case of FPA-PMLA-2909/CHD/2019 M/s. Besco
International FZE vs. The Deputy Director Directorate of
Enforcement, Chandigarh dated 31.07.2024. The relevant para of
the said judgment is quoted hereunder:
"It is not that only those properties which have been were
derived or obtained directly or indirectly out of the crime can
be attached rather in case of non- availability of the property
derived or obtained directly or indirectly rather when it is
vanished or siphoned off, the attachment can be of any
property of equivalent value.
It is necessary to clarify that the proceeds of crime would not
only include the property derived or obtained directly or
indirectly out of the criminal activity relating to the scheduled
offence but any other property of equivalent value. The word
"or" has been placed before "the value of any such property"
and is of great significance. Any property of equivalent value
can be attached when the proceeds directly or indirectly
obtained out of the crime has been vanished or siphoned off.
Here, the significance would be to the property acquired
even prior to commission of crime. It is for the reason that
any property acquired subsequent to the commission of
crime would be directly or indirectly proceeds of crime and
then, it would fall in the first limb of the definition of proceeds
of crime. In the second limb, which refers to "the value of any
such property" would indicate any other property which was
acquired prior to the commission of crime and it would be
attached only when the proceeds directly or indirectly
66
obtained or derived out of the criminal activity is not
available. It may be on account of siphoning off or vanished
by the accused. In those circumstances the property of
equivalent value can be attached. The word "the value of any
such property" signifies without any embargo that it should be
the property purchased after the commission of crime or prior
to it rather it would apply in both the eventuality in the given
circumstance. Thus, we are not in agreement with the
counsel for the appellant who has questioned the attachment
in reference to the property acquired prior to commission of
crime. We are not going even further that the properties have
nexus with the proceeds out of the crime but even in given
circumstances and scenario that the property was acquired
prior to commission of crime then, also under certain
circumstances, it can be attached for "the value of any such
property."
23. At this stage, it is reiterated that any other interpretation other
than the one taken by Delhi High Court in the cases of Axis Bank
(supra) and Prakash Industries (supra) for the definition of
"proceeds of crime" would defeat the object of the Act of 2002. It is
more especially when the arguments raised by the appellant that
the property acquired prior to the commission of crime would not
fall in the definition of "proceeds of crime". In that case, the task of
the accused would become very easy to first commit the
scheduled offence and after obtaining or deriving the property out
of the criminal activities, immediately siphon off or vanish so that it
may not remain available for attachment and otherwise the
contingency aforesaid would satisfy only the first limb of definition
of "proceeds of crime" leaving the second. We are thus unable to
accept the argument raised by the appellant so as to make the
middle part of the definition of "proceeds of crime" to be
redundant."
62. The learned Appellate Tribunal, in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 of its order,
has examined the statements of the appellants and the relevant
witnesses and found that the explanation put forth by the appellants
regarding the source of funds is not credible. The Appellate Tribunal
noted that these statements lack corroboration, particularly with respect
to the alleged borrowing of money for the purchase of properties, as well
as other material aspects. It has further been observed that, in general,
the appellants deposited cash into bank accounts of certain persons
who permitted the use of their accounts, after which the funds were
67
routed through banking channels. However, the appellants failed to
satisfactorily disclose the genuine source of such cash deposits, merely
asserting that the amounts were derived from agricultural income or from
firms under their control. The learned Appellate Tribunal also recorded
that the appellants could not substantiate their claim of agricultural
income, as they did not possess sufficient agricultural land during the
relevant period to generate the income disclosed. In several instances,
the agricultural land was acquired during or immediately prior to the
period in question, making it implausible that such land could have
produced income in earlier years sufficient to fund the acquisition of the
properties. Accordingly, the Appellate Tribunal concluded that the
explanation regarding the source of funds was unsubstantiated and
unreliable.
63. For ready reference, the properties belonging to the appellant-Ranu
Sahu and her family members, before 15.07.2020 and after 15.07.2020,
are quoted as under:
Properties before 15.07.2020, belonging to Ranu Sahu
S.No. PARTICULARS BUYER DATE OF ALLEGED
ACQUISITION
NATURE OF
PROPERTY
1. Kh no. 481 (0.09 Hect) Vill RANU SAHU 05.10.2017 Value thereof
Aasara, Tehsil Chhura,
Distt. Gariyaband
2. Kh no. 498/3 (0.21 Hect) RANU SAHU 05.10.2017 Value thereof
Vill Aasara, Tehsil
Chhura, Distt.
Gariyaband
3. Kh no. 276, (1.86 Hect), RANU SAHU 30.03.2018 Value thereof
Kh no. 282, (0.35 Hect) Vill
Vodarabanda, RNM, & Tehsil
Chhura Distt Gariyaband
4. Kh no. 281, (0.46 Hect), RANU SAHU 28.03.2018 Value thereof
Kh no. 259 (0.32 HEct),
Village Bodarabanda,
RNM & Tehsil Chhura, Distt
Gariyaband
5. 5. Kh no. 416 (0.11 Hect) RANU SAHU 28.03.2018 Value thereof
479 (0.27 Hect), 487 (0.25
Hect), 490/1 (0.12 HEct)
Vill Aasara Tehsil Chhura,
68
Distt Gariyaband
6. Kh no. 19/2 (4.50 Hect) Vill RANU SAHU 23.01.2020 Value thereof
Deharguda, RNM &
Tehsil Manipur, Distt
Gariyaband
7. Kh no. 19/3 (2.00 Hect) RANU SAHU 23.01.2020 Value thereof
Vill. Deharg Deharguda,
RNM & Tehsil Manirpur,
Distt Gariyaband
8. Kh no. 277 (0.06 Hect) Vill RANU SAHU 24.01.2020 Value thereof
Bodarabanda, RNM &
Tehsil Chhura Distt
Gariyaband
9. Kh no. 498/2 (0.20 Hect) RANU SAHU 23.01.2020 Value thereof
Vill Aasara RNM & Tehsil
Chhura Distt Gariyaband
10. Kh no. 498/1 (0.21 Hect) RANU SAHU 23.01.2020 Value thereof
Vill Aasara RNM & Tehsil
Chhura Distt Gariyaband
Belonging to Family Members
11. Kh no. 537/7 (0.202 Hect) ARUN KUMAR 24.07.2018 Value thereof
Gram Tekari, RNM & The SAHU LAXMI
Abhanpur, Distt Raipur SAHU PIYUSH
KUMAR SAHU
SALINI SAHU
12. Part of Kh no. 1460/2 PIYUSH 24.07.2018 Value thereof
Total Area 0.21 Hect, KUMAR SAHU
1460/2, 1462/2, 1482/2, PANKAJ
Vill Nayakbandha, RNM & KUMAR SAHU
The, Abhanpur, Distt- SHALINI SAHU
Raipur POONAM
SAHU
13. Kh no. 97/4 PHN 0.42 Vill LAXMI SAHU 12.12.2019 Value thereof
RNM, Tehsil & distt
Mahasamaund
14. Part of Kh No. 202/2 [0.05 SHALINI SAHU 07.03.2018 Value thereof
Hect] Vill Padampur RNM
sihava, Tehsil Nagari, Dist
Dhamtari.
15. Part of Kh No. 202/2 [0.05 LAXMI SAHU 07.03.2018 Value thereof
Hect] Vill Padampur RNM
sihava, Tehsil Nagari, Dist
Dhamtari.
16. Part of Kh. No. 1567 [0.86 LAXMI SAHU 22.09.2018 Value thereof
Hect] Village Bagaud RNM
& Tehsil-Kurud Dist
Dhamtari
17. Part of Kh. No. 1607, LAXMI SAHU 11.04.2019 Value thereof
[0.04 Hect] & Part of Kh
1545 [0.02 Hect] Village
Siriri, PH No.-12, RNM &
Tehsil-Kurud
Dist Dhamtari
18. Part of Kh No.424 ARUN SAHU 07.12.2019 Value thereof
[928.28 Sqft] A-30, Sector
09, Kamal Bihar, Gram
Devpuri, Raipur
19. Part of Kh. No. 1122 [0.05 PIYUSH SAHU 20.03.2018/ Value thereof
Hect] Gram Megha, RNM 16.04.2018
& Tehsil Magarload Dist
Dhamtari
69
Properties after 15.07.2020
1. Kh no. 271/10, (0.0140 ARUN KUMAR 16.07.2020 Direct PoC
Hect) Gram, Tikrapara, SAHU (Serial No.9 on
Raipur Ward NO. 50, page 93 of IO)
Sahid Pankaj Vikram
ward
2. Kh no. 394, (0.08) Hect, ARUN KUMAR 23.03.2021 Direct PoC
Vill. Kutena, RNM & SAHU (Serial No.10
Tehsil, Chhura, Distt. on page 93 of
Gariyaband IO)
3. Kh No.407/1, 407/2, ARUN KUMAR 27.03.2021 Direct PoC
407/3, Hect Village, Tulsi, SAHU LAXMI (Serial No.8 on
PH No. 41, RNM, Raipur SAHU page 92 of IO)
1, Tehsil & Distt Raipur
4. Part of Kh no. 1149/1 ARUN KUMAR 13.05.2021 Direct PoC
Total Area 0.86 Hect. Vil SAHU (Serial No.11 of
Pateva RNM & Tehsil, 3rd PC)
Nawapara, Distt Raipur
5. Part of Kh no. 1149/1 PANKAJ 13.05.2021 Direct PoC
Total Area 0.86 Hect. Vil KUMAR SAHU (Serial No.12 on
Pateva RNM & Tehsil, page 93 of
Nawapara, Distt Raipur IO)
6. Kh no 108/1,108/2,155, SHALINI SAHU 26.05.2021 Direct PoC
Total 1.630 Hect Gram (Serial No.6 on
Kalmidadar RNM. page 92 of IO)
Bagbahara, Mahasamund
7. Kh. No. 69/2, 71/1, ARUN KUMAR 26.05.2021 Direct PoC
72/2,73,105, 106, 107, SAHU (Serial No.7 on
109, 117, 119, 156, 157 page 92 of IO)
Gram Kalmidadar, RNM.
Bagbahara, Mahasamund
8. KH No 158, 159/, PANKAJ 26.05.2021 Direct PoC
163/2, 164, 165,171, KUMAR SAHU (Serial No.5 on
Total 3.350 Hect., page 91 of IO)
Kalmidadar, RNM.
Bagbahara, Mahasamund
9. Kh no. 115 (0.500 Hect) PIYUSH 03.06.2021 Direct PoC
Gram- Kalmidadar, RNM KUMAR SAHU (Serial No.3 on
Bagbahara/Khallari, The- page 91 of IO)
Bagbahar Distt.
Mahasamund
10. Kh no. 52/3 (01.120 Hect) PIYUSH 30.06.2021 Direct PoC
Gram- Kalmidadar, RNM KUMAR SAHU (Serial No.2 on
Bagbahara/Khallari, The- page 91 of IO)
Bagbahar Dist.
Mahasamund
11. Kh no. 163/1 (0.720 PIYUSH 06.07.2021 Direct PoC
Hect), 163/3, (0.280 KUMAR SAHU (Serial No.1 on
Hect), 163/4 (0.120 Hect) page 91 of IO)
Total 1.120 Hect. Gram-
Kalmidadar RNM-
Bagbahara/Khallari, The.
Bagbahara, Disst.
Mahasamund
12. Kh no. 61, (1.540 Hect.), PIYUSH 26.07.2021 Direct PoC
123, (0.120 Hect.), 124 KUMAR SAHU (Serial No.4 on
(0.120 Hect.) Total 1,780 page 91 of IO)
Hect., Gram-Kalmidadar,
RNM-Bagbahara/Khallari,
Teh-Bagbahara Dist-
Mahasamund
13. Part of Kh no. 772, (0.20 PIYUSH 27.08.2021 Direct PoC
Hect.) Vill. Kutena, RNM KUMAR SAHU (Serial No.13 on
& Tehsil Chhura, Distt page 93 of
Gariyaband IO)
70
14. Kh no. 50 (0.4H), 52/2 REVTI 26.05.2021 Direct PoC
(0.18H), 74/2 (1.21H), Vill (Serial No.14 on
Kalmidadar, RNM BAI SAHU page 93 of IO)
Bagbahara/Khallari, The.
Bagbahara, Distt -
Mahasamund
15. Kh no. 149 (1.23H), 151 TUSHAR SAHU 28.07.2021 Direct PoC
(0.74H), Vill. Kalmidadar, (Serial No.15 on
RNM Bagbahara/Khallari, page 94 of
The. Bagbahara, Distt -
Mahasamund
16. Kh no. 60/2 (0.31H), 62 RADHE 06.07.2021 Direct PoC
(0.89H), 114 (0.15H), SHYAM
116/1 (0.18H), 116/2
(0.2H), 118/1 (0.35H),
118/2 (0.3H), Vill.
Kalmidadar RNM,
Bagbahara / Khallari, Distt
Mahasamund
17. Kh no. 120 (0.51H), 121 JHAMMAN 30.06.2021 Direct PoC
(0.5H), 122 (0.8H), 152 LAL
(0.39H), 153 (0.81H), VIII.
Kalmidadar, RNM
Bagbahar/Khallari, The
Bagbahar, Distt
Mahasamund
64. With regard to attachment of property under equivalent value thereof, the
Apex Court, in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), observed as under:
"68. It was also urged before us that the attachment of
property must be equivalent in value of the proceeds of
crime only if the proceeds of crime are situated outside
India. This argument, in our opinion, is tenuous. For, the
definition of "proceeds of crime" is wide enough to not only
refer to the property derived or obtained as a result of
criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, but also of
the value of any such property. If the property is taken or
held outside the country, even in such a case, the property
equivalent in value held within the country or abroad can be
proceeded with. The definition of "property" as in Section
2(1) (v) is equally wide enough to encompass the value of
the property of proceeds of crime. Such interpretation would
further the legislative intent in recovery of the proceeds of
crime and vesting it in the Central Government for effective
prevention of money-laundering.
69. We find force in the stand taken by the Union of India
that the objectives of enacting the 2002 Act was the
attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime which is
the quintessence so as to combat the evil of money-
laundering.
....
71
187. In light of the above analysis, we now proceed to
summarise our conclusion on seminal points in issue in the
following terms:-
SPONSORED
…..
(vi) Section 5 of the 2002 Act is constitutionally valid. It
provides for a balancing arrangement to secure the
interests of the person as also ensures that the proceeds of
crime remain available to be dealt with in the manner
provided by the 2002 Act. The procedural safeguards as
delineated by us hereinabove are effective measures to
protect the interests of person concerned.
…”
65. Suryakant Tiwari is the main accused in the case and is directly involved
in scheduled offence and all other accused have participated in layering
or integration of the PoC. A diary is alleged to be seized by the ITD from
the residence of Rajnikant Tiwari, relative of Suryakant Tiwari in a raid.
All the accused have played different roles in commission of the offence.
In the diary, there are entries with respect to flow of funds which were
originating from the collection of illegal Rs. 25 per tonne extortion money
from the coal traders on the instructions of the Surayakant Tiwari. The
State Government used to issue a DO, then only the coal excavated
could be transported within the State or outside the State. Before 2020,
the system which was in vogue was that the DO will be issued online.
But taking the benefit of Covid-19, the online system was changed to
offline system at the behest of Sameer Vishnoi who was at the helm of
affairs of the Mining Department. Then started the entire game of
extortion. Any coal trade who intended to get the DO, had to pay the
extortion money to the people of Suryakant Tiwari and then only green
signal was given to the Mining Officer and the DO was granted. These
facts have come in the statements recorded in the Section 50 PMLA.
Statement recorded under Section 50 PMLA is different from Section
161 Cr.P.C. in such that the statement under Section 50 PMLA has been
72
given the sanctity as if a statement is recorded in the Court. If a witness
does not states the truth under Section 50 PMLA, then there are various
Sections of IPC for perjury which can be attracted against the person
making false statement.
66. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant(s) that no
scheduled offence survived at the time of passing of the impugned order
and that the proceedings were without jurisdiction, are noticed to be
rejected as the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the matter of bail application filed
by one of the co-accused Saumya Chaurasiya, vide judgment dated
14.12.2023 observed as under:
“26. The Court also does not find any substance in the
submission of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Siddharth
Aggarwal for the Appellant that the scheduled offences i.e.
Section 384 and 120 B having been dropped from the
chargesheet submitted against the accused Suryakant
Tiwari in connection with the FIR No. 129 of 2022
registered at Kadugodi Police Station Bengaluru, and the
ACJM Bengaluru vide the order dated 16.06.2023 having
taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section
204 and 353 IPC only, which are not the scheduled
offences under the PMLA Act, no scheduled offence
survived at the time of passing of the impugned order and
that the proceedings were/are without jurisdiction.
27. Apart from the fact that neither the Chargesheet dated
08.06.2023 nor the cognizance order 16.06.2023 were
placed on record during the course of arguments before the
High Court as they never existed at that time, the I.O. in the
Chargesheet filed in connection with the said FIR no. 129 of
2022 against Suryakant Tiwari has categorically mentioned
that “as the accused (Suryakant Tiwari) found to be
committed offence under Section 384 of IPC with his
henchmen at Chhattisgarh State for which the report would
be prayed to Chhattisgarh Police through proper channel.”
Hence, the offence under Section 384 could not be said to
have been dropped by the I.O. while submitting the
chargesheet in respect of the said FIR.”
67. From perusal of the OCs, which is also a detailed one wherein all the
incriminating evidences have been annexed, goes to suggest that a case
73
is made out against the appellants for attachment of their properties. The
appellants have failed to explain as to how those properties came to be
in their names.
68. Section 50 of the PMLA reads as under:
“50. Powers of authorities regarding summons,
production of documents and to give evidence,
etc.- (1) The Director shall, for the purposes of section
13, have the same powers as are vested in a civil Court
under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
while trying a suit in respect of the following matters,
namely:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) All the persons so summoned shall be bound to
attend in person or through authorised agents, as such
officer may direct, and shall be bound to state the truth
upon any subject respecting which they are examined or
make statements, and produce such documents as may
be required.
(4) Every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3)
shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the
meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian
Penal Code , 1860 (45 of 1860)
xxx xxx xxx”
69. Similarly, in the investigation of the ED, when the diary entries were
corroborated by the timing when the properties were purchased/sold it is
evident that the same was PoC has been utilized in the said
transactions.
70. The Apex Court, in Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement
{(2018) 11 SCC 46}, observed as under:
“19. The sweep of Section 45 of the Act of 2002 is no more
res intergra. In a recent decision of this Court in
the case of Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement
{(2015) 16 SCC 1}, this Court has had an occasion
to examine it in paragraphs 28 – 30. It will be useful to
advert to paragraphs 28 to 30 of this decision which read
thus: (SCC pp. 14-15)
“28. Before dealing with the application for bail on merit,
it is to be considered whether the provisions of Section
7445 of the PMLA are binding on the High Court
while considering the application for bail under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is
no doubt that PMLA deals with the offence of money
laundering and the Parliament has enacted this law as
per commitment of the country to the United Nations
General Assembly. PMLA is a special statute enacted
by the Parliament for dealing with money laundering.
Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
clearly lays down that the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure will not affect any special statute
or any local law. In other words, the provisions
of any special statute will prevail over the general
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of
any conflict.
29. Section 45 of the PMLA starts with a non
obstante clause which indicates that the
provisions laid down in Section 45 of the PMLA
will have overriding effect on the general provisions
of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of conflict
between them. Section 45 of the PMLA imposes
following two conditions for grant of bail to any person
accused of an offence punishable for a term of
imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of
the Schedule of the PMLA:
(i) That the prosecutor must be given an opportunity to
oppose the application for bail; and
(ii) That the Court must be satisfied that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused person is not guilty of such offence and that he
is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
30. The conditions specified under Section 45 of the
PMLA are mandatory and needs to be complied
with which is further strengthened by the provisions of
Section 65 and also Section 71 of the PMLA. Section
65 requires that the provisions of Cr.P.C. shall
apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that
the provisions of the PMLA shall have overriding effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in any other law for the time being in force.
PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of
Cr.P.C. would apply only if they are not inconsistent with
the provisions of this Act. Therefore, the conditions
enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be
complied with even in respect of an application for
bail made under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. That coupled
75
with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless
the contrary is proved, the Authority or the Court
shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in
money laundering and the burden to prove that the
proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the
appellant.”
20. In paragraph 34, this Court reiterated as follows:
34. “…We have noted that Section 45 of the PMLA will
have overriding effect on the general provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure in case of conflict
between them. As mentioned earlier, Section 45 of the
PMLA imposes two conditions for grant of bail, specified
under the said Act. We have not missed the proviso to
Section 45 of the said Act which indicates that the
legislature has carved out an exception for grant of
bail by a Special Court when any person is under the
age of 16 years or is a woman or is a sick or infirm.
Therefore, there is no doubt that the conditions
laid down under Section 45 A of the PMLA, would bind
the High Court as the provisions of special law having
overriding effect on the provisions of Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of
bail to any person accused of committing offence
punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, even when the
application for bail is considered under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
The decisions of this Court in the case of Subrata
Chattoraj v. Union of India {(2014) 8 SCC 768}, Y.S.
Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI {(2013) 7 SCC 439}, and
Union of India v. Hassan Ali Khan {(2011) 10 SCC 235}
have been noticed in the aforesaid decision.
21. The consistent view taken by this Court is that
economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies
and involving huge loss of public funds need to be
viewed seriously and considered as grave offences
affecting the economy of the country as a whole
and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health
of the country. Further, when attempt is made to project
the proceeds of crime as untainted money and
also that the allegations may not ultimately be
established, but having been made, the burden of
proof that the monies were not the proceeds of
crime and were not, therefore, tainted shifts on the
accused persons under Section 24 of the Act of 2002.”
71. Even if certain properties were acquired prior to the posting of the
appellant, Ranu Sahu, as Collector, Korba, it cannot be conclusively
76
held that such properties are immune from attachment. The statutory
framework governing the field, provides a clear and unambiguous
definition of the expression “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u) of
the PMLA. The term encompasses not only property directly or indirectly
derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled
offence, but also extends to the value of such property. Crucially, the
legislative intent underlying this definition is expansive. By specifically
including within its ambit “the value of any such property,” the statute
empowers the authorities, including the ED, to identify and attach
properties equivalent in value to the proceeds of crime. This principle
operates irrespective of whether such equivalent property was itself
acquired through lawful means or prior to the commission of the alleged
offence. Accordingly, in a situation where the actual tainted property i.e.,
the property directly derived from criminal activity is unavailable,
untraceable, or has been dissipated, the authorities are not rendered
powerless. Instead, they are statutorily authorized to proceed against
any other property of the accused or related persons, including family
members, to the extent of the value of the proceeds of crime. Such
attachment is not premised on the taint of the substitute property itself,
but on the necessity to secure the equivalent value of the illicit gains.
Therefore, properties purchased prior to the period of the alleged
offence, even if prima facie unconnected with the criminal activity, may
still be subject to attachment, provided that (i) the existence of proceeds
of crime is established, and (ii) equivalent value of such proceeds cannot
otherwise be recovered from the directly tainted assets. This
interpretation ensures that the object of the statute, to deprive offenders
of the economic benefits of crime, is not defeated by the mere
unavailability or concealment of the original proceeds.
77
72. It is not essential for the enforcement authority to establish by direct
evidence that the property in question is proceeds of crime. In a money
laundering case, the modus operandi often involves circuitous and
opaque financial transactions, making direct evidence inherently difficult
to obtain. Based on the material produced, including financial analysis,
property acquisition timelines, and the absence of verifiable legitimate
income, this Court is satisfied that there exists a prima facie nexus
between the property and the PoC. The PAO is therefore in consonance
with the statutory scheme under PMLA and is liable to be upheld. There
exists a reasonable belief, duly recorded and supported by material
evidence, that the attached properties are involved in money laundering
and further, the appellants have failed to rebut the statutory presumption
under Section 24 of the PMLA. We do not find that any question of law
arises in these appeals to be answered.
73. In view of the above discussion, we fully concur with the findings and
reasoning given by the learned AA as well as the Appellate Tribunal and
as such, these appeal(s) being devoid of merit, are accordingly
dismissed. However, the appellants are at liberty to take recourse to
Section 8(8) of the PMLA, if so advised.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
Digitally signed
by AMIT KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2026.04.22
15:42:29 +0530
78
Head Note
Properties acquired prior to the alleged offence are not automatically immune
from attachment under the PMLA. The definition of “proceeds of crime” under
Section 2(1)(u) includes not only tainted property but also its equivalent value,
reflecting a broad legislative intent. Where the actual proceeds are unavailable
or untraceable, authorities may attach other properties of equivalent value,
even if lawfully acquired or purchased earlier. Such attachment aims to prevent
offenders from retaining the economic benefits of crime.