Attachment of immovable properties of Ex-DyGM JKPCC
STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In a petition filed by Suresh Rekhi, the then DyGM, Jammu and Kashmir Project Construction Corporation (JKPCC) Limited and his wife seeking quashment of order of Enforcements Directorate, Justice Sanjay Dhar of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court after hearing Adv Ayushman Kotwal for petitioners, directed that till next date of hearing, no further action shall be taken by respondents against the petitioners on the basis of impugned order dated August 25, 2022.
It is worthwhile to mention here that Enforcement Directorate Jammu acted on FIR (12/2013) registered by Anti-Corruption Bureau Jammu on August 5, 2013 against one Suresh Rekhi, the then DyGM of JKPCC under section 5(1)(c) read with 5(2) J&K PC Act Samvat 2006 with allegation that Suresh Rekhi by indulging in corrupt and illegal practices accumulated huge wealth which was disproportionate to his legal source of income.
Acting on charge-sheet of ACB, Enforcement Directorate Jammu registered a case against Suresh Kumar Rekhi and Kumud Rekhi under Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002.The Enforcement Directorate during PMLA investigation has identified disproportionate assets acquired by accused persons which are taken as proceeds of Crime under PMLA Investigation. During PMLA investigation proceeds property tune of Rs 2,60,78,550 was provisionally attached vide PAO No. 01/2022 on January 31, 2022 in terms of section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA and are found involved in offence of money laundering. Further Adjudicating Authority PMLA New Delhi has confirmed the PAO No. 01/2022 issued on January 31, 2022 by pronouncing order of confirmation on August 25, 2022.
During the course of hearing Adv Ayushman Kotwal submitted that the impugned order dated August 25, 2022 was passed by Adjudicating Authority after the expiry of 180 days from the date of passing of Provisional Attachment Order i.e. January 31, 2022. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the reliance placed by the Adjudicating Authority on the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court is misplaced because the extension of the period of limitation has been granted in terms of the aforesaid order only in respect of institution of proceedings and not in respect of termination of the proceedings.
