S.
No.",Details,"DECISION ON RPCIL’S GREEN BELT/BUFFER ZONE/NO
DEVELOPMENT ZONE MATTER DURING CM’S MEETINGS",,,,,
,,11-09-04,20-06-05,23-11-05,22-01-08,,
S.No.,Heading,"SEZ
Plots",Area,"Non
SEZ
Plots",Area,"Total
Plots",Area
1,"O p e n Lands
(Unsold)
falling in
Green Belt
Area",1,4.665,6,73.21,7,77.875
2,"Transactions
Completed",0,0,9,70.563,9,70.563
3,"Transaction
NOT
completed",7,79.15,8,61.346,15,140.496
,TOTAL,8,83.815,23,205.119,31,288.934
SI. No.,Details of area,Acres,,,,,
1.,Non-SEZ plots sold in green belt area,199,,,,,
2.,SEZ plots sold in green belt area,140,,,,,
3.,Unsold plots in Non-SEZ area,205,,,,,
4.,Unsold plots in SEZ area,083,,,,,
,Total,627,,,,,
SI.
No.",Village,"A r e a in
Acres","Value per
Sq. Yd (as
per IGRS
website)",Total Value,,,
1,E. Bonangi,11.624,"Rs.
1500/-","Rs. 8,43,90,240",,,
2,Jagannathapuram,30.258,"Rs.
1500/-","Rs. 21,96,73,080",,,
3,Thanam,73.648,"Rs.
1000/-","Rs. 35,64,56,320",,,
4,Lemarthi,37.379,Rs. 1000/-,"Rs. 18,09,14,360",,,
5,Thadi,23.394,Rs. 1100/-,"Rs. 12,45,49,656",,,
,TOTAL,176.303,,"Rs. 96,59,83,656",,,
2.,"Plot No. 42, 43, 54, 72 in village
Thanam, non sez area total 19.71
acres Parwada  Mandal
Vishakhapatna, Andhra
Pradesh","M/s Ramky Pharma City
(India) Ltd. (RPCIL)",Rs. 23.66 Cr.,,,,
3.,"Plot No. 114 in Village Lemarthi,
SEZ area total 4.665 acres
Parwada Mandal
Vishakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh","M/s Ramky Pharma City
(India) Ltd. (RPCIL)",Rs. 8.93 Cr.,,,,
4.,"Sy. No. 12, 13, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 105, 106 & 107
Area 47.10 Acres vide sale deed
1608/2007 dated 12.01.2007
Lemarthi Village Parwada
Mandal, Vishakhapatnam, Andhra
Pradesh","M/s Ramky Pharma City
(India) Ltd. (RPCIL)",Rs. 1.98 Cr.,,,,
5.,"Commercial hub area on
12.39 acre of land containing
administrative building, R & D
Building, Guest Rooms, Resuarant
and Banquet hall, Gym and sports
rooms and swimming pool, Sy. 12,
13 and 22, Lemarthi Revenue
Village, Parwada Mandal,
Visakhapatnam and service Area
on 19.26 acres of land containing
Fire Station, Police Station,
Emergency
Medical Centre, Cafeteria, Bank,
Post Office, Telephone Exchange,
AP Transco. Shopping arcade,
ATM and Weigh Bridgeat Sy. No.
20,21,105,106 and
107 Lemarthi Revenue Village,
Parwada Mandal,
Visakhapatnam","M/s Ramky Pharma City
(India) Ltd. (RPCIL)",Rs. 54.64 Cr.,,,,
6.,"IDFC Mutual Fund vide folio no.
1293327/19 dated
16.08.2011","M/s Ramky Pharma City
(India) Ltd.
(RPCIL)",Rs. 3.2 Cr.,,,,
7.,"Land of survey no. Part of 4, 10,
12, 13, 14 and 18 of
Thanam Village Parwada
mandal Vishakhapatnam","M/s Ramky Pharma City
(India) Ltd. (RPCIL)",Rs. 4.50 Cr.,,,,
8.,"L a n d of Sy. No. 111/1,
105/2/77/1B, 79, 8/1A,
112, 13/1, 145/4B,
144/7B, 107/4B, 123/2,
75/2, 68/2A Duvvada Village,
Gajuwaka Revenue Mandal,
Vishakhapatnam-
29.615 acres","M/s Ramky Pharma City
(India) Ltd. (RPCIL)",Rs. 4.44 Cr.,,,,
9.,"Plot No. 83 in non SEZ area
34.43 acre in Parwada
Mandal Vishakhapatnam in the
pharma city","M / s JNPC Pharma
Innovation Ltd.","Rs. 40 Cr.
(Amount to be
attached is Rs.
32.39 Cr.)",,,,
1,"16 Nos. Unsold
admeasuring 159.566
Acres vide Plot No‘s 46, 33B,
39A, 57, 70-Part, 71,
84, 85 & 130A in Non-SEZ
Area; Plot No‘s 91, 93, 110
& 111 Part, 112 Part, 113,
128, 128 Part and 129 in SEZ area;
without JNPC","M / s Ramky
Pharma City India
Ltd., Hyderabad","Rs. 114,88,75,200",,,,
2,"Plot No. 56 of area 9.85 Acres and
Plot No. 45 of area 9.135 Acres
totaling to
18.985 Acres in Non-SEZ area
within JNPC","M / s Ramky
Pharma City India
Ltd.,
Hyderabad","Rs. 22,78,20,000",,,,
3,"Balance amount in Plot No. 83 in
Non-SEZ ara of 34.43 Acres which
was attached
vide PAO No. 01/2013","M / s Ramky
Pharma City India
Ltd.,
Hyderabad","Rs. 7,61,00,000",,,,
4,"73.648 Acres of land vide OP-19 to
40 in Sy. No.‘s Parts of 183, 54,
178, 175,
176, 55, 86, 50, 47, 52, 46,
171, 173, 170, 174, 40, 42,
169, 41, 63, 65, 66, 67, 54,
64, 35, 37 & 38 in Thanam Village","M / s Ramky
Pharma City India
Ltd., Hyderabad","Rs. 35,64,56,320",,,,
5,"37.379 Acres of land vie OP-01 to
04 & OP-50, 52, 65, 66 is Sy.
No‘s Parts of 26, 27, 03, 01, 02,
202, 80, 81, 83, 87, 74, 82, 86, 48,
52, 54, 56, 77, 44, 47 & 48
in Lemarthi Village","M / s Ramky
Pharma City India
Ltd., Hyderabad","Rs. 18,09,14,360",,,,
6,"23.394 Acres of land vide OP-05 to
18 in Sy. No‘s 202, Parts of 198,
195, 254, 263, 262, 182, 189, 156,
138, 140, 136 & 137
in Thadi Village","M / s Ramky
Pharma City India
Ltd., Hyderabad","Rs. 12,45,49,656",,,,
7,"11.624 Acres of land vide OP-41 to
44 & OP-64 in Sy. No‘s Part of
93, Parts of 94, 95 & 105, Parts of
107,
108 & 117 and Part of 137
in E. Bonangi Village","M / s Ramky
Pharma City India
Ltd., Hyderabad","Rs. 8,43,90,240
(Attachment to the extent of
Rs. 4,71,32,545 only)",,,,
,Total,,"Rs. 216,18,48,081
(restricted to Rs.
212,45,90,386/-)",,,,
The area of the proposed Pharma City was specified as being “over 865 Hectaresâ€, equivalent to 2162.5 Acres.",,,,,,,
17.12.2002 Newspaper publication inviting Expression of Interest published in Financial Express and Economic Times.,,,,,,,
L&T RAMBOLL appointed as a Consultant by APIIC for submitting a Project Report and preparing a tentative Master Plan for Pharma City to,,,,,,,
enable APIIC to obtain requisite statutory approvals.,,,,,,,
L&T RAMBOLL conducted a detailed study and submitted a Report titled “Techno Economic Feasibility and Development of Pharma City at,,,,,,,
Parawada†along with the Master Plan.,,,,,,,
L&T RAMBOLL also prepared a detailed Request for Proposal (“RFP’) for and on behalf of APIIC which contained the envisaged Plan and,,,,,,,
land use pattern for Pharma City.,,,,,,,
As per master plan forming part of the detailed project report, out of the total area of 2119 Acres, an extent of 363.71 Acres was recommended to be",,,,,,,
earmarked for “green area†and an extent of 1332.96 Acres was to be utilized for Industrial Plots.,,,,,,,
31.07.2003 The Ramky Group responded to the RFP and submitted a detailed project report offering that out of the total area of 2254 Acres, an",,,,,,,
extent of 1467 Acres would be utilized for industrial plots. The RPCIL was selected after the proposal of the Ramky Group was approved and,,,,,,,
accepted.,,,,,,,
18.11.2003 Letter of Intent (LOI) bearing No. APIIC/CE-I/PHARMA CITY/18/2002 was issued selecting the Ramky Group as developer of Pharma,,,,,,,
City on the basis of the proposal submitted by the Ramky Group.,,,,,,,
12.02.2004 Letter from APIIC to VUDA informing that area upto 1km distance around IDA Parwada was to be treated as “Control Zoneâ€,",,,,,,,
permitting only certain non-polluting activities and no residential activities.,,,,,,,
12.03.2004 APIIC entered into a Concession Agreement with Ramky Group pursuant to the LOI for development of the Pharma City. Accordingly,",,,,,,,
the Pharma City was to be developed as a joint venture between Ramky Group and APIIC. The equity was in the ratio of 89% for Ramky and 11%,,,,,,,
for APIIC.,,,,,,,
11.09.2004 Then CM conducted a review meeting with concerned officials, on wherein the then CM advised VUDA to undertake plantations in the",,,,,,,
No Development Zone earmarked by VUDA of the required witdh of 500 mts/ 1 Km.,,,,,,,
13.04.2005 Letter from GandiBabji, MLA to the then CM objecting to APIICâ€s proposal of earmarking 1km around Pharma City as “No",,,,,,,
Development Zone/ Green Belt†and suggesting that green belt be maintained inside Pharma City in an area of 800 acres.,,,,,,,
12.05.2005 Letter from APIIC to MA&UD informing that the proposal of the MLA to develop 800 acres inside Pharma City as Green Belt would not,,,,,,,
be possible in light of the land use pattern as agreed upon.,,,,,,,
15-17.05.2005 Minutes of the meeting of the Committee appointed by the Honâ€ble Supreme Court of India under the Ministry of Environment and,,,,,,,
Forests which visited Andhra Pradesh to review the progress made with regard to the implementation of the orders of the Supreme Court pertaining to,,,,,,,
hazardous waste management, and suggested that 500m around Pharma city must be maintained as buffer zone.",,,,,,,
20.06.2005 Meeting where the then VC, VUDA appraised the then CM Shri Y.S. Rajashekara Reddy that unless the land falling within 1 Km. radius",,,,,,,
from the Pharma City is acquired, VUDA cannot raise thick plantations as they were facing opposition from land owners. Thus, a suggestion was",,,,,,,
mooted that the buffer zone be limited to 500 mts, out of which 250 mts. will be within the Pharma City all along the boundary and the remaining 250",,,,,,,
mts. will be in the adjoining lands.,,,,,,,
The said suggestion was contrary to the stipulations contained in the Concession Agreement in as much as the Concession Agreement did not,,,,,,,
contemplate maintenance of any such buffer zone and was also contrary to recommendations of the APPCB and Supreme Court Monitoring,,,,,,,
Committee.,,,,,,,
Representatives of Ramky and APIIC were not present in the Meeting.,,,,,,,
The suggestions mooted in the Meeting did not fructify into any decision made by the Government as evidently, there were inherent fallacies in the",,,,,,,
suggestions made in the Meeting.,,,,,,,
21.07.2005 Letter from APIIC to GoAP informing that development of green belt inside Pharma City as per MLA GandiBabjiâ€s suggestion would,,,,,,,
not be possible in light of the land use pattern agreed upon for the Pharma City.,,,,,,,
10.08.2005 Letter from APPCB to VUDA informing that a No Development Zone of 500m outside Pharma City was required to be marked while,,,,,,,
finalizing the VUDA Master Plan.,,,,,,,
23.11.2005 Meeting between stakeholders, including the then CM and representatives from Ramky and APIIC, wherein it was decided that the buffer",,,,,,,
zone/ No Development Zone would be implemented in a periphery of 250 mts. outside the Pharma City and 50 mts. inside the Pharma City.,,,,,,,
The said decision was contrary to the Concession Agreement and affected valuable rights of Ramky as prior to Meeting dated 20.06.2005, Ramky",,,,,,,
was not required to maintain any buffer zone around the Pharma City, albeit it was required to maintain a green belt in accordance with the",,,,,,,
Agreement.,,,,,,,
14.08.2006 Minutes of the Meeting with VC VUDA, as per which Ramky was to maintain 50m Buffer Zone inside Pharma City",,,,,,,
23.06.2007 VUDA Note File, observing that the change from maintenance of green belt inside Pharma City from 250m to 50m was required to be",,,,,,,
incorporated in the Master Plan. Also noting that Buffer Zone/Green Belt had not been envisaged in the draft Master Plan notified during January,,,,,,,
2004.,,,,,,,
03.12.2007 Layout sanction bearing LP No. 73/2007 granted by VUDA in favour of Ramky, detailing the land use pattern and providing that RPCIL",,,,,,,
was required to maintain Green Belt of 50m inside Pharma City.,,,,,,,
07.04.2011 G.O. Rt. No. 437 issued by the Govt. setting up a committee to suggest the extent of buffer zone required and to consider the,,,,,,,
recommendations made by the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee regarding maintenance of 500 Mts. buffer zone around Pharma City.,,,,,,,
07.08.2012 Communication by APIIC under RTI regarding green belt/ open spaces in other Industrial Parks.,,,,,,,
01.03.2013 GO. Ms. No. 20 issued to maintain buffer green belt zone of atleast 500 Mts for Industrial Areas.,,,,,,,
19. As per the case of CBI/ E.D who contended that in relation to an existing Ramky Pharma City Project, Dr. Y.S. Rajashekar Reddy had granted a",,,,,,,
concession by reducing the green belt area from a radius of 250 mts from the outer perimeter of Ramky Pharma City to 50 m. It is stated that this,,,,,,,
resulted in more industrial area of 914 Acres being made available for conveyance by Ramky Pharma City. It is argued that if there were no,,,,,,,
obligation to maintain a green-belt as per Concession Agreement, then why Ramky later on even agreeable to green belt area from the radius of 250",,,,,,,
mts from 50 m.,,,,,,,
20. A meeting on 20.06.2005 concerning Urban Development bodies, it was suggested that as local persons were opposing the buffer zone (BZ) it",,,,,,,
must be delineated to be 250mts outward and 250mts inward perimeter. Government Municipal Administration & APIIC explained why the buffer,,,,,,,
zone has to be outside only and not inside.,,,,,,,
21. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that as restriction of 50 mts. inwards is a reduction from 250 mts suggested at 20.06.2005 meeting,,,,,,,
arranged in order to give the benefit to Ramky. The case of the Respondent is that the Ramky was aware about the said first meeting. The second,,,,,,,
meeting was arranged in order to get the benefit from reduction from 250 mts. to 50 mts.,,,,,,,
22. On 23.11.2005, a coordinated meeting of all concerned persons was conducted wherein it was finally decided that BZ would extend 200 outwards",,,,,,,
and 50mts inwards from the perimeter of the Pharma City. On account of this decision rather Ramky was subjected to a restriction of not using 50mts,,,,,,,
inwards which was beyond provided in the concession agreement. It is the case of the appellants that, in fact, it is Ramky who suffered a loss rather",,,,,,,
than benefiting under such stipulations.,,,,,,,
23. It is submitted on behalf of Ramky that the requirement of a Green Buffer/ area is 352.31 Acres, who is already maintaining of 50 Mts as green",,,,,,,
belt along the inner boundary would amount to 222 Acres of land which has been maintained by the Ramky who also maintains 72.15 Acres of Green,,,,,,,
Buffer HT Corridor and around 60 Acres of Green Buffer open spaces inside the pharma city. This land usage is consistent with the Concession,,,,,,,
Agreement as well as the directions of the Honâ€ble Chief Ministerâ€s 2nd meeting which is attended by all the persons concerned and the same was,,,,,,,
the consent order passed. It is alleged that maintaining 250 Mts of green belt ought to have been maintained is not only contrary to the settled essential,,,,,,,
condition of a concluded Concession Agreement but is also against basic economic consideration for a transaction.,,,,,,,
24. It is submitted that there was no logic in the decision taken in the first meeting which is not attended on behalf of appellant. The order was passed,,,,,,,
at their back. It is stated that the requirement of leaving 250 Mts of green belt inside pharma city would amount to 973 Acres of land inside pharma,,,,,,,
city. On the other hand, it was the case of CBI and ED contend that the appellant has gained a 914 Acres of land as only 59 acres of land is left as",,,,,,,
green belt zone. In reply, it is stated that if 914 Acres of extra land has to be demarcated within the existing 2143.13 Acres of land as green belt area,",,,,,,,
then the plotted area for commercial use would reduce from 1429 Acres to merely 515 Acres of land i.e., 25 % of the entire pharma city.",,,,,,,
25. It is argued on behalf of appellants that despite of having no condition in the agreement dated 12.03.2014, still in order to give concession and to",,,,,,,
buy the peace, it was agreed by the Ramky that they are agreeable for 50 mts. for maintaining the green belt. The Master Plan vide GoMs 345 dt.",,,,,,,
30.06.2006 does not specify or give a specific acreage to be adhered to for maintaining of Green Belt.,,,,,,,
26. The case of M/s. Jagati Publications Ltd. -,,,,,,,
(a) Jagati Publications was incorporated on 14.11.2006 as private limited company and subsequently became a public limited company from,,,,,,,
12.01.2009. All the investments made in Jagati Publications are genuine business transactions by the investors and they hold all rights upon such,,,,,,,
investment being held in form of share. The valuation of Jagati Publications†shares were arrived after taking the entire enterprise valuation of Sakshi,,,,,,,
News Paper Project with “size and circulation†into effect. Sakshi regional newspaper was launched with a circulation of about 12 lakh copies,,,,,,,
with 23 printing centers simultaneously in States of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, New Delhi, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.",,,,,,,
(b) The valuation of Jagati Publications†shares is based on Discounted Cash Flow Method (DCF, which has been approved by the Reserve Bank of",,,,,,,
India under Foreign Exchange Management Act Notification number FEMA 205/2010 issued on 07.04.2010) which is a futuristic valuation technique,,,,,,,
for valuing a company even before the commencement of its operations.,,,,,,,
(c ) The total of 60 investors (including Mr. Nimagadda Prasad and his group companies) had purchased Appellantâ€s shares at Rs. 360 per share,,,,,,,
with a premium of Rs. 350 per share. Therefore, singling out one certain business transaction/ investment only to accuse the same as quid pro quo",,,,,,,
without any basis would be arbitrary and illegal.,,,,,,,
(d) The attachments at the hands of Jagati Publications are wholly unnecessary as the Orders of the Honâ€ble High Court at Hyderabad dated,,,,,,,
23.05.2012 made in CrLP No. 4523 of 2012 restrain the alienation of any assets of the company while taking into account that Jagati Publications is a,,,,,,,
media house employing numerous persons.,,,,,,,
(e ) Statutory requirement under Section 5 and Section 8 of PMLA to show “reason to believe†that the Appellants are likely to frustrate the,,,,,,,
property under attachment is not established.,,,,,,,
(f) The entire proceedings under PMLA are untenable in law as the allegations in the CBI Case are made in relation to allegations prior to 2009. The,,,,,,,
penal provisions, which are sought to be pressed against the Appellant, were not included in the Schedule to the PMLA during the relevant time and",,,,,,,
were only included in the Schedule by way of amendment to PMLA vide Act No. 21 of 2009 w.e.f. 01.06.2009. Thus, even the allegations made in",,,,,,,
the predicate CBI Case, no “scheduled offence†was committed for the purposes of PMLA. Therefore, the Provisional Attachment Order, and",,,,,,,
confirmation thereof, is vitiated on jurisdictional grounds for lack of power.",,,,,,,
27. The main case of the respondent in nutshell is that the reduction of said 250 mts. to 50 mts. by the CM in second meeting amounts to favouring the,,,,,,,
appellants as the son of CM had accepted the investment of Rs. 10 Crores. The said investment was made at the instance of CM.,,,,,,,
28. There is no denial on behalf of either party that the Concession Agreement dated 12.03.2004 singed and entered into by the APIIC and Ramky,,,,,,,
during the reign of Chief Minister Chandra Babu Naidu. CL. H8 stipulates that a green belt in accordance with CPCB guidelines 2000 is to be,,,,,,,
maintained. The said guidelines provide for a formula to be calculated taking into account the foliage and the chemicals that are produced. It does not,,,,,,,
SL.No.,Details of Land Allotment for 2143 Acrs,Acres,Acres,,,,
1.,Plotted Area,1481.06,,,,,
2.,Industrial Plots,,1429.21,,,,
3.,Non- Processing Area,,0004.75,,,,
4.,Commercial Hub and Service Area,,0047.00,,,,
5.,Roads,,0207.12,,,,
6.,Green Buffer,0352.31,,,,,
,a) Green Buffer Open Space,,0221.21,,,,
,b) Green Buffer HT Corridor,,0072.15,,,,
,c) Green Buffer along the layout boundary,,0058.95,,,,
7.,Utilities & Services,0101.74,,,,,
,"a) CETP & Hazardous Waste Management
Area",,0093.84,,,,
,b) WTP/ UGT Area,,0007.90,,,,
India under Foreign Exchange Management Act Notification number FEMA 205/2010 issued on 07.04.2010) which is a futuristic valuation technique,,,,,,,
for valuing a company even before the commencement of its operations.,,,,,,,
41. It is denied on behalf of appellants that there is any violation in getting the land. The Supreme Court environmental committee (in relation to,,,,,,,
Pollution Management) and the Vizag Urban Development Authority suggested that in view of the large industrial park comprising nearly 2000 acres a,,,,,,,
buffer zone outside the industrial area preventing habitation/ residential development be maintained.,,,,,,,
42. Admittedly originally the buffer zone was outwards from the perimeter of the Pharma City and was initially suggested to be 1 km but was later,,,,,,,
reduced to 500mts on the account of opposition from local persons.,,,,,,,
43. There are total of 60 investors (including Mr. Nimagadda Prasad and his group companies) had purchased Appellantâ€s shares at Rs. 360 per,,,,,,,
share with a premium of Rs. 350 per share. The action was taken against 15 investors till the date of first provisional attachment order was passed.,,,,,,,
The respondent has failed to explain why no action was taken against remaining 45 investors nor any charge-sheet is filed by CBI against them.,,,,,,,
44. It is submitted on behalf of appellants that accusing the business investment as quid pro quo without any cogent and clear evidence. It is alleged,,,,,,,
that the attachments at the hands of Jagati Publications are wholly unnecessary as the Orders of the Honâ€ble High Court at Hyderabad dated,,,,,,,
23.05.2012 made in Cr. LP No. 4523 of 2012 already restrained the alienation of any assets of the company while taking into account that Jagati,,,,,,,
Publications is a media house employing numerous persons.,,,,,,,
45. It is not denied that it was beyond the concession agreement but Ramky undisputedly admitted to maintain restriction of 50 mts inwards is a,,,,,,,
reduction from 250 mts. It has come on record that in the first meeting, it is also not denied that there was no representation of its behalf. 250 mts.",,,,,,,
suggested was decided at their back in the said meeting.,,,,,,,
46. Counsel for the respondent and IO was asked to produce the master plan of the year 2000 or 2001 on the development of the Pharma Sector in,,,,,,,
Andhra Pradesh in order to come to know as to whether there was any provision for buffer zone inside the pharma for 250 mts. The same was not,,,,,,,
produced for the said relevant period, IO has informed that there was no master plan for maintaining the buffer zone in the city for better zone for 500",,,,,,,
mts, 250 mts inside the premises at the relevant point of time. On behalf of the appellants, it is submitted that as documents/material available on",,,,,,,
record, it would show that Ramky was/is maintaining the 50 mts buffer zone.",,,,,,,
47. Ramky has no relation or business relation directly or indirectly with Jagati Publication, Jagan Mohan Reddy or his late father. The amount, a sum",,,,,,,
of rupees ten crores paid for purchasing the land was not tainted money, even the said fact has not been denied by the counsel for the respondent.",,,,,,,
The case of the appellants is that the said amount was invested by its group companies towards purchase of shares. It was done in order to earn profit,,,,,,,
in the company who is progressive in nature.,,,,,,,
48. It is also a matter of record that the RAMKY Group even prior to taking up the Pharma City Project was an already established group.,,,,,,,
They have developed Indiaâ€s first integrated hazardous waste facility, Indiaâ€s first biomedical waste facility and also Indiaâ€s first integrated",,,,,,,
municipal solid waste facility. Moreover the RAMKY Group has established itself as a large business conglomerate with progressive and transparent,",,,,,,,
mechanisms and systems in place. It is a specialist multi-disciplinary organization with a turnover of over 4,500 Crores.",,,,,,,
48.1 The Group has over 6,000 employees across its professionally managed Group Companies, and has regional offices at Delhi, Mumbai,",,,,,,,
Ahmadabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Bhopal and Kolkata, with 55 project offices across India, UAE, Singapore and Gabon, West Africa. Therefore, it is",,,,,,,
clear that RAMKY Group was and is a large business conglomerate with progressive and transparent mechanisms and systems in place.,,,,,,,
48.2 The RAMKY Group was selected on the basis of its RFP. Accordingly, a letter of intent in Letter No. APIIC/CE-I/PHARMA CITY/18/2002",,,,,,,
dated 18.11.2003 was issued to the Appellant Group. Pursuant to the Letter of intent, the APIIC and the Appellant executed a Concession Agreement",,,,,,,
dated 12.03.2004. Accordingly, the Pharma City was developed as a joint venture between the Appellant Group and the APIIC. Thereafter, the",,,,,,,
Pharma City came to be named as “JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PHARMA CITY ( JNPC)â€,,,,,,,
49. Pursuant to the Joint Venture being established, about 102 companies have purchased plots and/or doing business in the Pharma City. Various",,,,,,,
international and national prestigious companies such as EISAI Pharma from Japan, Pharma Zell, Gmbh from Germany, Hospira from U.S.A. Mylan",,,,,,,
fro U.S.A. Aptuit Laurus from USA, SNF from France, Minarava from Belgium, Kanoria Chemicals, Vijaysri Organics, Vasudha etc. have set up",,,,,,,
their industries in the Pharma City.,,,,,,,
50. As per the Concession Agreement, the Appellant was not required to maintain any buffer zone around the Pharma City. The appellant was only",,,,,,,
required to maintain green belt in accordance with the “Guidelines for Development of Greenbelts†published by CPCB in March 2000 (Please,,,,,,,
refer Clause H8 of Schedule H of the Concession Agreement), which did not prescribe maintenance of any buffer zone around the Pharma City.",,,,,,,
51. It is stated that since there was a possibility of residential areas coming up along the boundary of the Pharma City, the APPCB suggested that a",,,,,,,
control area be provided outside the Pharma City prohibiting residential areas and polluting industries upto a distance of 1kilometre. The same is,,,,,,,
evidenced by the letter dated 12.02.2004 written by APIIC to the Vice Chairman VUDA requesting him not to give permissions for any residential,,,,,,,
layouts around the pharma City.,,,,,,,
52. Burden of Proof,,,,,,,
Sec. â€" 24 : Burden of Proof - In any proceeding relating 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.",,,,,,,
53. Sec. 24(a) - the expression in the said provision of Sec. 24(a) person charged with means that charges are framed against the person concerned.,,,,,,,
There is a difference between the framing of charge-sheet and filing of charge-sheet. When the charges are framed by the court, it can be presumed",,,,,,,
that judicial mind has been applied after having gone through the allegations and material placed on record. The case of the respondent always been,,,,,,,
that once the allegations of money laundering are made, there is a presumption against the party to discharge the burden of proof.",,,,,,,
54. The said provision has been substituted by Act 2 of 2013, S. 19, for S. 24 (w.e.f. 15-2-2013). Prior to its substitution, S. 24 read as under:-",,,,,,,
“Burden of proof.- When a person is accused of having committed the offence under section 3, the burden of proving that proceeds of",,,,,,,
crime are untainted property shall be on the accused. Unamended provision has been toned down by virtue of amendment.,,,,,,,
55. In Rajya Sabha debate held on 17th December 2012 on the issue of Section 24 of PML Act, 2002, the Honâ€ble Finance Minister, the following",,,,,,,
discussions were taken placeâ€",,,,,,,
Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I am grateful to the hon. Members, especially ten hon. Members who have spoken on this Bill and supported the",,,,,,,
Bill. Naturally, some questions will arise; they have arisen. It is my duty to clarify those matters. Sir, firstly, we must remember that money-",,,,,,,
laundering is a very technically-defined offence. It is not the way we understand “money laundering†in a colloquial sense. It is a,,,,,,,
technically-defined offence. It postulates that there must be a predicate offence and it is dealing with the proceeds of a crime. That is the,,,,,,,
offence of money-laundering. It is more than simply converting black-money into white or white money into black. That is an offence under,,,,,,,
the Income Tax Act. There must be a crime as defined in the Schedule. As a result of that crime, there must be certain proceeds â€" It could",,,,,,,
be cash; it could be property. And anyone who directly or indirectly indulges or assists or is involved in any process or activity connected,,,,,,,
with the proceeds of crime and projects it as untainted property is guilty of offence of money-laundering. So, it is a very technical offence.",,,,,,,
The predicate offences are all listed in the Schedule. Unless there is a predicate offence, there cannot be an offence of money-laundering.",,,,,,,
Initially the thinking was unless a person was convicted of the predicate offence, you cannot convict him of money laundering. But that",,,,,,,
thinking is evolved now. The Financial Action Task Force has now come around to the view that if the predicate offence has thrown up,,,,,,,
certain proceeds and you dealt with those proceeds, you could be found guilty of offence of money-laundering. What we are trying to do is",,,,,,,
to bring this law on lines of laws that are commended by FATF and all countries have obliged to bring their laws on the same lines. I just,,,,,,,
want to point to some of my friends that this Bill was passed in 2002. In 2002, we felt that these provisions are sufficient. In the working of",,,,,,,
the law, we found that the provisions have certain problems. We amended it in 2005. We amended it in 2009. We still find that there are",,,,,,,
some problems. The FATF has pointed out some problems. And, we are amending it in 2012. It is not finding fault with anyone. All I am",,,,,,,
trying to say is that this is an evolutionary process. Laws will evolve in this way, and we are amending it again in 2012. A few questions",,,,,,,
were raised. These are very pertinent questions and I will answer them very briefly. Firstly, both, Mr. Satish Chandra Misra and Mr. N.K.",,,,,,,
Singh, asked me about the “burden of proof†and whether we have, in effect, given acceptance to the recommendations of the Standing",,,,,,,
Committee that we have made a distinction in the “burden of proof†so that it does not fall heavily on persons who are not charged with,,,,,,,
offence of money-laundering. If you look at the original section in the parent Act, section 24, when a person is accused of having committed",,,,,,,
the offence, the burden of proving that the proceeds of crime are untainted property shall be on the accused. This was a drastic provision.",,,,,,,
Simply by an accusation that he had committed an offence of money-laundering, the burden of proof was shifted to the accused. He may not",,,,,,,
even be charged at that time. This was what we found to be an onerous provision and an unfair provision. And, what we have now done is",,,,,,,
to tone down this provision. In (a) and (b), you asked me as to why (b) was there. Now, (a) and (b) will make a distinction. In (a), there is a",,,,,,,
person charged with the offence of money-laundering â€" the principal offence under the Act. In (b), it is any other person who is brought",,,,,,,
before the Court. Therefore, in the case of (a), we maintain the rigour of the section. We borrow from the Evidence Act, “shall",,,,,,,
presumeâ€, and “shall presumeâ€, as you know, means that the court shall regard that the fact is proved unless it is disputed. So, we",,,,,,,
maintain the rigour of the section. But, we use the well-accepted phrase “shall presumeâ€. In the case of any other person, we borrow",,,,,,,
the phrase “may presumeâ€; the court may presume, may not presume and evidence to the contrary can be let off. So, we have now made",,,,,,,
a distinction between a person charged with the main offence of money-laundering, and persons who are charged with other offences",,,,,,,
because, as you know, under sections 43 and 44, all other offences shall be tried by the same court which tries offence of money",,,,,,,
laundering.,,,,,,,
Then, the question was asked that by using the word “chargedâ€, whether we are shifting the burden of proof even at the stage of the",,,,,,,
report under 173(8). The answer is: obviously, no. Under 173(8), what is filed is a report after investigation. The word “chargeâ€",,,,,,,
occurs for the first time in the Criminal Procedure Code under section 211, “Every charge under this Code shall State the offence with",,,,,,,
which the accused is charged.â€. So, we borrow the language of 211 and say, replace the word “accused†and say “when a person",,,,,,,
is charged with an offence, that is when the court frames a charge against him under section 211â€. Only at that stage, the burden shifts to",,,,,,,
him. So, I think, that makes it very clear.",,,,,,,
56. Now, the question is as to whether said debate by Rajya Sabha can be relied upon and have some legal implication to the court or not. If yes,",,,,,,,
under which circumstances.,,,,,,,
57. In the case of Union of India and Others Versus Martin Lottery Agencies Limited reported in (2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 20 9in para 38, it is",,,,,,,
held as under:-,,,,,,,
There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that speech of the Hon'ble Finance Minister in the House of the Parliament may be taken to be a valid tool for,,,,,,,
interpretation of a statute. It was so held in K.P. Varghese v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam & Anr. [(1981) 4 SCC 173 at 184], in the",,,,,,,
following terms :,,,,,,,
“Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory,,,,,,,
provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the Mover of the,,,,,,,
Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought to,,,,,,,
be remedied by the legislation and the object and purpose for which the legislation is enacted. This is in accord with the recent trend in,,,,,,,
juristic thought not only in western countries but also in India that interpretation of a statute being an exercise in the ascertainment of,,,,,,,
meaning, everything which is logically relevant should be admissible.""",,,,,,,
58. In the case of K.P. Varghese versus Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and another reported in para 8, it is held as under:",,,,,,,
8. But the scope of sub-section (1) of section 52 is extremely restricted because it applies only where the transferee is a person directly or,,,,,,,
indirectly connected with the assessee and the object of the under-statement is to avoid or reduce the income-tax liability of the assessee to,,,,,,,
tax on capital gains. There may be cases where the consideration for the transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received by,,,,,,,
the assessee but the transferee is not a person directly or indirectly connected with the assessee or the object of under-statement of the,,,,,,,
consideration is unconnected with tax on capital gains. Such cases would not be within the reach of sub section (1) and the assessee,",,,,,,,
though dishonest, would escape the rigour of the provision enacted in that sub-section. Parliament therefore enacted sub-section (2) with a",,,,,,,
view to extending the coverage of the provision in sub-section (I) to other cases of under statement of consideration. This becomes clear if,,,,,,,
we have regard to the object and purpose of the introduction of sub-section (2) as appearing from travaux preparatoire relating to the,,,,,,,
enactment of that provision. It is a sound rule of construction of a statute firmly established in England as far back as 1584 when Heydon's,,,,,,,
case(1) was decided that""... for the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general-four things are to be discerned and considered:",,,,,,,
(1) What was the common law before the making of the Act, (2) What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide,",,,,,,,
(3) What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth, and (4) The true reason of the",,,,,,,
remedy, and then the office of all the Judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy"".",,,,,,,
In in re Mayfair Property Company(2) Lindley. M.R. in 1898 found the rule ""as necessary now as it was when Lord Coke reported",,,,,,,
Heydon's case"". The rule was reaffirmed by Earl of Halsbury in Eastman Photographic Material Company v. Comptroller General of",,,,,,,
Patents, Designs and Trade Marks(3) in the following words:",,,,,,,
“My Lords, it appears to me that to construe the Statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the",,,,,,,
former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise, and to the later Act which provided the remedy. These three",,,,,,,
being A compared I cannot doubt the conclusion.â€,,,,,,,
This Rule being a Rule of construction has been repeatedly applied in India in interpreting statutory provisions. It would therefore be,,,,,,,
legitimate in interpreting sub-section (2) to consider that was the mischief and defect for which section 52 as it then stood did not provide,,,,,,,
and which was sought to be remedied by the enactment of sub-section (2) or in other words, what was the object and purpose of enacting",,,,,,,
that sub-section. Now in this connection the speech made by the Finance Minister while moving the amendment introducing sub-section (2),,,,,,,
is extremely relevant, as it throws considerable light on the object and purpose of the enactment or sub-section (2). The Finance Minister",,,,,,,
explained the reason for introducing sub-section (2) in the following words:,,,,,,,
“Today, particularly every transaction of the sale of property is for a much lower figure than what is actually received. The deed of",,,,,,,
registration mentions a particular amount; the actual money that passes is considerably more. It is to deal with these classes of sales that,,,,,,,
this amendment has been drafted-It does not aim at perfectly bona fide transactions.. but essentially relates to the day-to-day occurrences,,,,,,,
that are happening before our eyes in regard to the transfer of property. I think, this is one of the key sections that should help us to defeat",,,,,,,
the free play of unaccounted money and cheating of the Government.""",,,,,,,
Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory,,,,,,,
provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the Mover of the,,,,,,,
Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred t o for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought to,,,,,,,
be remedied by the legislation and the object and purpose for which the legislation is enacted. This is in accord with the recent trend in,,,,,,,
juristic thought not only in Western countries but also in India that interpretation of a statute being an exercise in the ascertainment of,,,,,,,
meaning, everything which is logically relevant should be admissible. In fact there are at least three decisions of this Court, one in Loka",,,,,,,
Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income-Tax(1) the other in Indian Chamber of Commerce v. Commissioner of Income-tax(2) and the,,,,,,,
third in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association(3) where the speech made by the Finance,,,,,,,
Minister while introducing the exclusionary clause in section 2 clause (15) of the Act was relied upon by the Court for the purpose of,,,,,,,
ascertaining what was the reason for introducing that clause. The speech made by the Finance Minister while moving the amendment,,,,,,,
introducing sub- section (2) clearly states what were the circumstances in which sub-section (2) came to be passed, what was the mischief",,,,,,,
for which section 52 as it then stood did not provide and which was sought to be remedied by the enactment of sub-section (2) and why the,,,,,,,
enactment of sub-section (2) was found necessary. It is apparent from the speech of the Finance Minister that sub-section(2) was enacted,,,,,,,
for the purpose of reaching those cases where there was under- statement of consideration in respect of the transfer or to put it differently,",,,,,,,
the actual consideration received for the transfer was 'considerably more' than that declared or shown by the assessee, but which were not",,,,,,,
covered by sub- section (1) because the transferee was not directly or indirectly connected with the assessee. The object and purpose of,,,,,,,
sub-section (2), as explicated from the speech of the Finance Minister, was not to strike at honest and bonafide transactions where the",,,,,,,
consideration for the transfer was correctly 13: disclosed by the assessee but to bring within the net of taxation those transactions where,,,,,,,
the consideration in respect of the transfer was shown at a lesser figure than that actually received by the assessee, so that they do not",,,,,,,
escape the charge of tax on capital gains by under-statement of the consideration. This was real object and purpose of the enactment of,,,,,,,
sub-section (2) and the interpretation of this sub-section must fall in line with the advancement of that object and purpose. We must,,,,,,,
therefore accept as the underlying assumption of sub-section (2) that there is under-statement of consideration in respect of the transfer and,,,,,,,
sub-section (2) applies only where the actual consideration received by the assessee is not disclosed and the consideration declared in,,,,,,,
respect of the transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received.,,,,,,,
59. Therefore, if in the Parliament debate, the Finance Minister or any Minister of the House is involved in the discussion and question and answer, the",,,,,,,
said debate can be relied upon by any party. The same may not be relied upon if same with only the Member of Parliament. The said discussion by,,,,,,,
the Minister is meant in order to understand the incorporation of said respective provision in the statute. Actually, the same was the intention for",,,,,,,
amending Section-24 of the Act which was notified w.e.f. 15.02.2015. The overall situation is that if the charges are already framed on the date of,,,,,,,
action, the burden of proof shall always lies with the party concerned to establish that the party is not involved in the money laundering.",,,,,,,
However, if the charges are not framed, the respondent has to discharge the initial burden that the party is involved in the money laundering by",,,,,,,
producing the materials, thereafter, the burden would be shifted to the party concerned. No doubt, under the old provision (amended provision) of",,,,,,,
Section-24 of the Act, the burden of proof was upon the party against whom the allegations are made from the initial stage itself, irrespective of fact",,,,,,,
whether the charges are framed or not. Therefore, the decisions rendered are correct as those were passed at that time when old (unamended",,,,,,,
provision) â€" Section 24 was applicable.,,,,,,,
60. Therefore, unless the charges are framed with the offence of money laundering under Section-3 of the Act, the burden of proof shall remain lies",,,,,,,
with the respondent to prove that the concerned parties are involved with the offence of money laundering in order to invoke Section-3 of the Act if,,,,,,,
the properties were acquired from the proceed of crime. Nothing has come on record to show that the money which was paid in order to purchase the,,,,,,,
land by Ramky was tainted money.,,,,,,,
61. In connected appeals filed by third parties, it was established by way of evidence that the value of the shares was increased in terms of money",,,,,,,
with the passage of time and huge profits were made by selling the shares purchased against the investment in the Jagati Publication. Therefore, it is",,,,,,,
difficult to conclude at this stage that the allegations made by the respondent are true and the shares purchased are bogus transaction and waste of,,,,,,,
papers.,,,,,,,
62. In the present set of appeals, the respondent has failed to discharge its burden as there is no valid independent investigation under PMLA. Merely",,,,,,,
on the basis of allegations of CBI in the charge-sheet, the provisional attachment was passed. Valid reasons to believe were not recorded. It is not",,,,,,,
even prima facie established as to whether Rs. 10 crores were bribe amount or it is the price of shares. Only on the basis of apprehension and,,,,,,,
presumption, the properties were attached.",,,,,,,
63. The allegations of bribe and cheating and other offences raised by CBI are yet to be tested by law in court. There is no denial that the Ramky has,,,,,,,
not made the investment directly. It was made by group companies of Ramky against the purchase of shares. Prima facie, there is no material on",,,,,,,
record to show that impugned properties were acquired by Ramky from the tainted amount. There is not an iota of evidence that at point of time, the",,,,,,,
Ramky has got tainted amount. There is valid finding as per law by the respondent and Adjudicating Authority about the Concession Agreement. Most,,,,,,,
of the relevant clauses have been ignored and legally decided.,,,,,,,
64. It is the admitted position that the Pharma city project was conceived and was grounded during the Chief Ministership of Mr. Chandrababu Naidu,,,,,,,
much prior to May 2004 when Mr. Y.S. Rajashekara Reddy became the Chief Minister.,,,,,,,
65. The master plan for the Pharma city Project and the EOI invited was on the basis of proposed industrial area and non-industrial area within the,,,,,,,
Pharma City. The Ramky was selected (prior to Mr. Y.S. Rajashekara Reddyâ€s becoming the Chief Minister) on its suggested proposal of the,,,,,,,
development of Pharma City indicating industrial, infrastructural area and green belt. The said proposal which has also been approved for development",,,,,,,
by Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation.,,,,,,,
66. The allegations in the CBI case are made in relation to allegations prior to 2009. The penal provisions, which are sought to be pressed against the",,,,,,,
Appellant, were not included in the Schedule to the PMLA during the relevant time and were only included in the Schedule by way of amendment to",,,,,,,
PMLA vide Act No. 21 of 2009 w.e.f. 01.06.2009. Thus, even according to the allegations made in the predicate CBI Case, no “scheduled",,,,,,,
offence†was committed for the purposes of PMLA. It is argued on behalf of appellants that this is also one of the grounds to set-aside the,,,,,,,
Provisional Attachment Order, and confirmation thereof as argued.",,,,,,,
67. On the issue of the question of retrospectively operation, the Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edition, at page 215, under the",,,,,,,
heading-Retrospective Operation of Statutes, writes.",,,,,,,
“UPON the presumption that the legislature does not intend what is unjust rests the leaning against giving certain statutes a retrospective,,,,,,,
operation. They are construed as operating only in cases or on facts which come into existence after the statutes were passed unless a,,,,,,,
retrospective effect is clearly intended. It is a fundamental rule of English law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective,,,,,,,
operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication. The",,,,,,,
statement of the law contained in the preceding paragraph has been “so frequently quoted with approval that it now itself enjoys almost,,,,,,,
judicial authority.â€,,,,,,,
68. In Lauri v. Renad (1892) 3 Ch 402, by Lindley, L.J. that it is a fundamental rule of English Law that no “statute shall be construed so as to",,,,,,,
have a retrospective operation, unless its language is such as plainly to require such a construction. And the same rule involves another and",,,,,,,
subordinate rule, to the effect that a statute is not to be construed so as to have a greater retrospective operation than Us language renders necessary.",,,,,,,
It is stated that it is well recognized rule that statutes should be interpreted, if possible, so as to respect vested rights, but such a construction should",,,,,,,
never be adopted if the words are open to another construction. It is also stated that if a statute be ambiguous, the Court should lean to the",,,,,,,
interpretation which would support existing rights.,,,,,,,
69. In the Queen v. The Inhabitants of St. Mary, Whitechapel (1848) 12 QB 120, the Court pointed out that “The Statue which in its direct",,,,,,,
operation of prospective cannot be properly called a retrospective statute because a part of the requisites for that action is drawn from the time,,,,,,,
antecedent to its passingâ€.,,,,,,,
70. The fundamental rule of interpretation of statutes. Following case laws are cited:-,,,,,,,
a) Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited Versus Union of India and Others (2012) 11 SCC that: at page 90 paras 153 & 154 held,,,,,,,
“153. Having carefully considered Section 17-A, I have no hesitation in holding that the said provision is prospective. There is no",,,,,,,
indication in Section 17-A or in terms of the amending Act that by insertion of Section 17-A Parliament intended to alter the pre-existing,,,,,,,
state of affairs. Parliament does not seem to have intended by bringing in Section 17-A to undo the reservation of any mining area made by,,,,,,,
the State Government earlier thereto for exploitation in public sector. Parliament has no doubt plenary power of legislation within the field,,,,,,,
assigned to it to legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively. As early as in 1951 this Court in Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of,,,,,,,
Bombay [AIR 1951 SC 128 : (1951) 52 Cri LJ 860 ]had stated about a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie,,,,,,,
prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. Unless there are words in the statute,,,,,,,
sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only. In Principles of Statutory",,,,,,,
Interpretation (7th Edn., 1999) by Justice G.P. Singh, the statement of Lord Blanesburg in Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving [1905 AC",,,,,,,
369 : (1904-07) All ER Rep Ext 1620 (PC)] and the observations of Lopes, L.J. in Pulborough Parish School Board Election, In re, Bourke",,,,,,,
v. Nutt [(1894) 1 QB 725 : (1891-94) All ER Rep 831 (CA)] have been noted as follows: (QB p. 737),,,,,,,
“In the words of Lord Blanesburg, „provisions which touch a right in existence at the passing of the statute are not to be applied",,,,,,,
retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment‟. „Every statute, it has been said‟, observed Lopes, L.J.,",,,,,,,
„which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty, or attaches a",,,,,,,
new disability in respect of transactions already past, must be presumed to be intended not to have a retrospective effect‟.â€",,,,,,,
154. Where an issue arises before the court whether a statute is prospective or retrospective, the court has to keep in mind presumption of",,,,,,,
prospectivity articulated in the legal maxim nova constitution futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis i.e. “a new law ought to,,,,,,,
regulate what is to follow, not the pastâ€. The presumption of prospectivity operates unless shown to the contrary by express provision in the",,,,,,,
statute or is otherwise discernible by necessary implication.â€,,,,,,,
b) Keshavan Madhava Menon Versus State of Bombay, AIR 1951 SC 128 â€" para 7 [7 Judge Bench of Honâ€ble Supreme Court]",,,,,,,
“7.,,,,,,,
………………………………………………………………….,,,,,,,
Every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implications made to have retrospective operation. ……………,,,,,,,
………………………………………………………………………,,,,,,,
…………………………………………………..â€,,,,,,,
c) Mahadeolal Kanodia Versus Administrator, General of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 936 â€" para 8 [3 Judge Bench of Honâ€ble Supreme Court],",,,,,,,
Section 8(5) before amendment,Section 8(5) after amendment w.e.f. 15.02.2013,,,,,,
(5) Where on conclusion of a trial for
any scheduled offence, the persons
concerned is acquitted, the
attachment of the property of the
retention of the seized property or
record under sub-section (3) and net
income, if any, shall cease to have
effect.","(5) Where on conclusion of a trial of an offence under
this Act, the Special Court finds that the offence of
money laundering has been committed, it shall order
that such property involved in the moneylaundering or
which has been used for commission of the offence of
moneylaundering shall stand confiscated to the Central
Government.",,,,,,
amendment and since the petitioner was not one of the accused, the amendment to Section 8(5) will not apply to the case of the petitioner.",,,,,,,
That vested rights cannot be taken away by retrospective application of the law (especially quasi criminal) is too well settled. A useful,,,,,,,
reference may be made in this regard to the judgements of the Supreme Court in STO v. Oriental Coal Corporation MANU/SC/0427/1988 :,,,,,,,
1988 (Suppl) SCC 308 and in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala MANU/SC/0200/1995 : (1994) 5 SCC 59. 3In Oriental Coal Corporation,,,,,,,
the Supreme Court pointed out that where there is no hint of retrospectivity, in the statute itself, it is not possible to read retrospectivity.",,,,,,,
Similarly, in K.S. Paripoornan, the Supreme Court indicated the distinction between a statute dealing with substantive rights and a statute,",,,,,,,
which relates to procedure or evidence or is declaratory in nature. A statute dealing with substantive rights is prima facie prospective unless,,,,,,,
it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. On the contrary, a statute concerned mainly with matters of",,,,,,,
procedure, or evidence or which is declaratory in nature has to be construed as retrospective, unless there is clear indication to the contrary.",,,,,,,
71. The PMLA is not a statute dealing merely with matters of procedure or evidence or which is declaratory in nature. It is a statute which,,,,,,,
affects substantive rights of parties. Therefore, by the test indicated in K.S. Parpoornan, it cannot have retrospective effect.",,,,,,,
72. In fact, the PMLA ,2002 underwent several amendments from the year 2005 onwards. Even the expression “proceeds of crimeâ€",,,,,,,
defined in Section 2(1)(u) underwent an amendment by Act 2 of 2013 and later by Finance Act, 2016. Today, the definition includes any",,,,,,,
property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Therefore,",,,,,,,
even the property in the hands of third parties can be attached and confiscated, if it is shown that they represent proceeds of crime. Hence,",,,,,,,
by its very nature, the provisions of the Act cannot have retrospective effect.",,,,,,,
73. The argument of the Ramky on the issue of retrospective has some force as the case of respondent is with regard to agreement which was,,,,,,,
executed in the year 2004, but this Tribunal does not wish to pass the order only on this plea and is inclined to decide the appeals on merit also in view",,,,,,,
of allegations made by the respondent. As far as allegations made in CBI charge-sheet are concerned, this Tribunal does not wish to express any",,,,,,,
opinion on merit.,,,,,,,
74. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that there are many issues raised by the appellants either to have",,,,,,,
been ignored or not decided as per law. Thus, appeals are partly allowed by modifying both impugned orders until the final decision is given by the",,,,,,,
Special Court on merit or the charge-sheet is quashed by the court prior to start of trial or otherwise.,,,,,,,
75. In the light of afore-said reasons, the following directions are passed pertaining to Ramky by modifying the impugned orders dated 07.01.2013 and",,,,,,,
08.08.2015 as well as the provisional attachment order:-,,,,,,,
(i) Ramky shall maintain 50 mts. inward as buffer zone inside the pharma till the disputes is finally decided by the Special Court. The attachment in this,,,,,,,
regard shall continue unless it is vacated by the Special Court. The remaining all attached properties are released forthwith.,,,,,,,
(ii) Ramky shall not dispose of and sell buffer-zone area nor raise any construction thereon, unless final order is passed in its favour.",,,,,,,
(iii) The possession of 16 unsold plots be restored by the respondent forthwith i.e. to Ramky (which were attached by way of Provisional Attachment,,,,,,,
Order no. 6/2015 for an amount of Rs.212.45 Crores and confirmation thereto by the impugned order dated 04.08.2015 in OC-441/2015). However, it",,,,,,,
is directed to Ramky not to dispose of the said plots or to raise any construction or to create third party interest. Ramky may also move an application,,,,,,,
for removal of said condition if no charges are framed against the Ramky by the Special Court.,,,,,,,
(iii) The said conditions are imposed without prejudice to the right and contention of Ramky to contest its claims in all forums.,,,,,,,
76. Section 35 of PMLA provides the Procedure and powers of the Appellant Tribunal which says that Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure,,,,,,,
laid down by Code of Civil Procedure but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and,,,,,,,
Appellant Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own procedure. One of the main objects and reasons of this Act is to confiscate of proceeds of,,,,,,,
crime apart to the criminal liability if the accused has committed under the provisions of this Act and schedule offense. Till the time final order is,,,,,,,
passed by the Special Courts, if a valid case is made by ED, the proceeds of crime must be preserved so that after final order it should be confiscated",,,,,,,
for the benefit of State.,,,,,,,
77. Before this Act came into existence, it has been noticed that accused person used to dispose of proceeds of crime till the time final orders are",,,,,,,
passed under the Schedule Offense. Therefore, in order to secure the proceeds of crime, some directions are required to be passed in appropriate",,,,,,,
appeals to preserve the proceeds of crime.,,,,,,,
78. In case Order XXXVIII of code of Civil Procedural are read meaning manner it appears that the objects and reasons of PMLA to preserve the,,,,,,,
proceeds of crime to somehow similar. Order XXXVIIII provides the remedy of arrest and attachment before judgment.,,,,,,,
79. Sub-section (1) of the said provision mandates that at any stage if the defendant has absconded or left the local limit of the jurisdiction or is about,,,,,,,
to abscond or leave and has disposed of his property or part thereof in order to obstruct the execution of decree against him, the court under those",,,,,,,
circumstances may issue warrant to arrest to bring him before court and ask him to furnish security for his appearance. If the defendant fails to,,,,,,,
furnish security under sub section 4, under sub section 5, the court, if satisfies, may direct the defendant for furnishing security for production of",,,,,,,
property in order not to allow the defendant to obstruct the decree.,,,,,,,
80. The provisions of Section 5 and 8 of PMLA are not exactly similar but principles and intend to incorporate the said provision to some are the,,,,,,,
guiding factors. The impugned order has been passed without application of mind. All issues raised by the appellants have not been considered or,,,,,,,
decided. It was merely one-sided approach without going through the material available on record.,,,,,,,
81. In view of the above, the appeals filed by Jagati Publication Ltd. are partly allowed. The attachment of FDR for the sum of Rupees ten crores",,,,,,,
shall stand released, subject to the condition that the appellant shall furnish the Indemnity Bond as surety for the same amount with an undertaking that",,,,,,,
if the final order is passed against the Jagati, the appellant shall deposit the said amount immediately with the respondent. The said direction is passed",,,,,,,
without prejudice.,,,,,,,
82. As far as allegations of CBI are concerned, this Tribunal does not wish to express any opinion on merit and the same have to be considered as per",,,,,,,
law. The present order has been passed only for the purpose of attachment of properties and confirmation thereof.,,,,,,,
83. All the appeals and pending applications are disposed of.,,,,,,,
84. No costs,,,,,,,
