KUMAR SANJIT KRISHNA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel, Enforcement Directorate.

(2.) The appellant has prayed for setting aside the final order dtd. 13/8/2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi, in FPA-PMLA1341/GWH/2024, by which the appellant's challenge to the order dtd. 27/5/2024, passed by the Adjudicating Authority, confirming the provisional attachment of the appellant's residential house vide order dtd. 20/12/2023 has been rejected.

(3.) The challenge to the impugned final order dtd. 13/8/2025 is on the ground that there is no evidence or money trail established by the respondents in support of their allegation that the appellant had received an amount of Rs.40.00 lakhs in the cash for leak of question paper scam. Further, the provisional attachment order dtd. 20/12/2023 does not show that the same had been made under Sec. 2(1)(u) of the Act, i.e., that the attached property was a part of the proceeds of crime. The reasons subsequently given for issuing the provisional attachment order having been explained by subsequent reasons, the provisional attachment order could not have any public effect. In this respect, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, which in Para 8 has held as follows:-