PMLA Attachment Upheld as SAFEMA Tribunal Rejects RUD Non-Supply Plea

Rajeev Nayan Mishra Vs Deputy Director (Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi)

Signed Acknowledgment of RUDs Cannot Be Disowned Two Months Later Without Any Complaint Against the Serving Officer: PMLA Tribunal

Summary: The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA has upheld the attachment of property connected with the alleged leakage of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable Recruitment Examination question papers.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant’s contention that the relied-upon documents were not furnished to him while he was in judicial custody. Once the appellant had signed an acknowledgment recording receipt of the envelope, he could not deny delivery nearly two months later without having made any contemporaneous complaint against the police official who served it.

Background of the case

An FIR was registered on 06.03.2024 concerning the leakage of the question papers of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable Recruitment Examination scheduled for February 2024.

The offences alleged included cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the IPC, apart from offences under the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination Act, 1998.

The Special Task Force conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet against 18 persons, including the appellant, Shri Rajeev Nayan Mishra.

According to the prosecution, a group of persons connected with the logistics company responsible for transporting the question papers obtained access to the sealed boxes stored in a warehouse in Ahmedabad. The boxes were allegedly opened, the question papers photographed using mobile phones and thereafter resealed.

The appellant was alleged to have travelled to Ahmedabad along with the other accused, stayed at a hotel near the printing press and participated in obtaining and circulating photographs of the leaked question papers.

It was further alleged that the leaked papers were supplied to groups of candidates at resorts and that amounts of approximately ₹5 lakh per candidate were proposed to be collected, subject to their success in the examination.

The Enforcement Directorate provisionally attached the property allegedly representing proceeds of crime. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order dated 06.08.2024 by its order dated 16.01.2025.

Only ground argued before the Tribunal

Although several grounds had been raised in the appeal, the appellant confined his argument before the Tribunal to one issue—non-supply of the relied-upon documents or RUDs.

The appellant contended that the show-cause notice and RUDs were required to be furnished to him to enable him to defend the attachment proceedings.

It was claimed that while he was in custody, a police official showed him a sealed envelope and obtained his signature as acknowledgment, but did not actually hand over the envelope. Consequently, he was unaware of the documents contained in it.

The appellant relied upon a letter dated 09.11.2024 addressed to the Enforcement Directorate complaining of non-supply of the documents. After his release on bail, he sought inspection and copies of the documents and requested further time to file his response.

According to him, denial of additional time resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Signed acknowledgment established service

The Tribunal found that the envelope containing the notice and RUDs had been served upon the appellant while he was in prison and that he had signed the acknowledgment recording its receipt.

The appellant’s letter dated 09.11.2024 itself contained an admission that his signature had been obtained on the acknowledgment. His case was only that the envelope was not physically delivered after the signature was taken.

The Tribunal asked whether any complaint had been made against the police official who allegedly obtained the signature without delivering the envelope. The appellant admitted that no such complaint had been lodged.

The Tribunal also noticed that the alleged non-delivery was raised only after approximately two months. No satisfactory explanation was offered for this delay.

In these circumstances, the allegation that the signature was obtained without actual delivery was treated as an afterthought.

Subsequent request viewed as an attempt to delay proceedings

The appellant referred to an email dated 11.11.2024 to contend that only the Provisional Attachment Order and original complaint were supplied and not the RUDs.

The Tribunal rejected this argument because the Enforcement Directorate had never claimed that the RUDs were supplied through that particular email. Its case was that the RUDs and show-cause notice had already been delivered in prison through the acknowledged envelope.

The record also showed that the Directorate initially attempted personal service through a special messenger. When it was discovered that the appellant was in custody, the notice and documents were sent to him in prison.

After being released on bail, the appellant was also permitted to inspect the documents by the Registrar of the Adjudicating Authority.

However, even after inspection, the appellant again requested copies of RUD Volumes I and II and sought a further period of 30 days to file his reply.

The Tribunal observed that the attachment proceedings were required to be completed within the statutory period of 180 days. It inferred that the repeated demand for the same documents and requests for further time were intended to delay the adjudication until the provisional attachment lapsed.

No challenge on merits

The Tribunal also noticed that the appellant did not argue the merits of the attachment or dispute his alleged involvement in the examination-paper leakage racket.

Despite being specifically given an opportunity to raise other factual or legal grounds, his counsel confined the appeal entirely to the alleged non-supply of the RUDs.

The Tribunal therefore observed that it was not required to examine the underlying allegations in detail. Since the merits were not challenged, the appeal was decided solely on the question of service and opportunity of hearing.

Appeal dismissed

The Tribunal concluded that:

• the notice and RUDs had been served upon the appellant in prison;
• he had signed the acknowledgment of receipt;
• no contemporaneous complaint was made against the serving police official;
• the allegation of non-delivery was raised only after two months;
• inspection of the documents was subsequently permitted; and
• sufficient opportunity had been granted to submit a reply.

The plea of violation of natural justice was accordingly rejected and the appeal was dismissed.

Author’s comments

The ruling highlights the importance of immediately recording any defect in the service of notices or documents. Where an envelope is received under protest, is incomplete or is not actually delivered despite acknowledgment being obtained, a written complaint must be made contemporaneously to the prison authorities, Adjudicating Authority and Enforcement Directorate.

A bare denial made after a substantial delay may not overcome a signed acknowledgment of receipt.

At the same time, the decision should not be understood to mean that a signature on an acknowledgment is conclusive in every case. It creates strong evidence of service, but it may still be rebutted through contemporaneous complaints, prison dispatch and receipt registers, CCTV footage, affidavits or other reliable material.

The case also demonstrates the risk of confining an appeal entirely to a procedural objection. Once the objection regarding non-supply of documents failed, no substantive ground remained to challenge the attachment on merits.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

By this appeal, a challenge has been made to the order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (“PAO”) dated 06.08.2024.

Brief facts of the case:

2. It is a case where an FIR was registered on 06.03.2024 by Police Station, Kanker Kheda, Meerut for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination Act, 1998 in relation to leaked question papers of the UP Police Constable Recruitment Examination, 2003 scheduled for 18.02.2024. The Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force (UPSTF) was constituted for the investigation, which raided certain premises and arrested six accused involved in leakage of examination papers. Pursuant to the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the UPSTF on 06.06.2024 wherein the following features of the allegations are narrated:

(a) During a search operation, authorities recovered eight mobile phones and photocopies of the UP Police Recruitment Examination question paper and answer key for the exam scheduled on the second shift of February 18, 2024. Six individuals were arrested: Deepu alias Deepak, Bittu, Praveen, Rohit alias Lalit. Naveen Kumar, and Sahil, all from Meerut.

(b) The accused, Monu, had forwarded the leaked question paper and answer key through WhatsApp to Sahil on 17.02.2024, who then forwarded it to Naveen Kumar. Naveen further shared it with Bittu, who forwarded it to Praveen, and Praveen passed it on to one Dabbu.

(c) Additionally, VikramDahiya and Monu Sharma were requested by Bittu to provide the leaked question paper and answer key, scheduled for the second shift on 18.02.2024, to Pravesh Pradhan, Gulzar, Asif, and Gaurav on 17.02.2024. Subsequently, Pravesh Pradhan printed the leaked question paper and answer key and gave them to Rohit alias Lalit, who further handed them to Deepak.

(d) A bag containing the 21-page question paper and a 6-page answer key was found and identified by Deepu as belonging to the UP Police Constable Exam scheduled for 18.02.2024. After learning of the exam’s cancellation due to the paper leak and the possibility of strict legal action, the accused deleted their mobile phone chats. All six individuals were taken into custody.

(e) A chargesheet was filed by the UPSTF on 06.06.2024 against the following 18 accused persons under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC, 1860, as well as sections 4, 5, 7, and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination Act, 1998:

(f) The chargesheet also revealed that after completing his intermediate education from Gautam Buddha Nagar, Ravi Atri, the mastermind behind the UP Police Constable Recruitment Examination 2023 (UPPCRE-23′) paper leak, went to Allen Coaching Center in Kota, Rajasthan, in 2007 to prepare for medical entrance exams. There, he met Atul Vats, who was involved in helping students pass competitive exams by arranging proxies to take exams on their behalf.

(g) After passing the Haryana Pre-Medical Test in 2012, Ravi Atri gained admission to PGIMS Rohtak in Haryana. In 2015, he met Vinay, a resident of Bihar, who was visiting Medical College Rohtak. Their conversations led Ravi Atri to become involved with a paper leak gang from Bihar, where he assisted in leaking exam papers and arranging solvers for competitive exams.

(h) During a bus journey from Prayagraj to Lucknow, Ravi Atri met Ankit Mishra from Pratapgarh, who mentioned his involvement in recruiting personnel for logistics companies such as Blue Dart, TCI, and Gati. Knowing that examination papers for competitive exams were often transported through these logistics companies, Ravi Atri befriended Ankit Mishra and asked him to notify him if any exam papers were to be transported through his company. Ankit Mishra later introduced Ravi Atri to Abhishek Kumar Shukla from TCI, who, in turn, brought in his former colleagues Shivam Giri and Rohit Pandey to devise a plan for leaking the UPPCRE-23 exam papers.

(i) On February 1, 2024, Shivam Giri informed Abhishek Shukla that the UPPCRE-23 question papers had arrived at the company’s warehouse and were scheduled for distribution in Uttar Pradesh by February 12, 2024. Shivam Giri took photos of the sealed boxes containing the exam papers and sent them to Abhishek Shukla, who forwarded them to Ravi Atri. Ravi Atri then shared these photos with Rajeev Nayan Mishra, a contact he had met through Dr. Sharad from Lucknow. Ravi Atri also contacted Dr.Shubham Mandal, an expert in opening sealed boxes and a known associate from the paper solver gang based in Patna, requesting him to assist. Additionally, Ravi Atri asked Rajeev Nayan Mishra to travel to Almedabad, where the exam papers were stored.

(j) On February 3, Abhishek Shukla and Ravi Atri travelled to Ahmedabad. Rajeev Nayan Mishra arrived by car on February 5, and all three stayed at Daslunesh Hotel, which is located near Edutest Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the printing press responsible for printing the UPPCRE-23 papers. They received Dr.Shubham Mandal at the airport, who had flown in on a ticket booked by Ravi Atri. Subsequently, the group, including Ravi Atri, Abhishek Shukla, Rajeev Nayan Mishra, and Dr. Shubham Mandal, went to the TCI warehouse in Kheda, Ahmedabad, where they met with Shivam Giri and Rohit Pandey.

(k) Dr.Shubham Mandal took an iPhone from Rajeev Nayan Mishra and, along with Shivam Giri and Rohit Pandey, entered the warehouse. They successfully opened the boxes, photographed two sets of question papers with the iPhone, and resealed the boxes. After exiting the warehouse, Dr. Shubham Mandal handed the phone containing the photos of the question papers to Rajeev Nayan Mishra.

(l) Ravi Atri promised to pay Shivam Giri and Rohit Pandey Rs. 5 lakh each, with an additional Rs.15-20 lakh upon the successful execution of their plan. Dr. Shubham Mandal returned to Patna on February 6. On February 7. Shivam Giri informed Abhishek Shukla about the arrival of another set of papers. Ravi Atri then called Dr. Shubham Mandal back to Ahmedabad on February 8, and they repeated the process using another iPhone owned by Rajeev Nayan Mishra. The group stayed at Dashmesh Hotel for an additional two to three days, anticipating the arrival of another paper code at the warehouse, but the fourth-code paper did not arrive.

(m) Ravi Atri and Rajeev Nayan Mishra provided the leaked papers to Vikram Pahal, a Delhi Police constable. Vikram Pahal introduced Ravi Atri to his associates Daud, Mahendra Sharma, Monu Sharma, Vikram Dahiya, Vijay alias Neetu, Dheeraj alias Goldy, and Indrajit alias Guniya. Ravi Atri transferred Rs. 2 lakh to an account connected to Dr. Shubham Mandal, Rs.2.5 lakh to Abhishek Shukla’s account, and an additional Rs.2 lakh to Abhishek Shukla’s account via Vikram Pahal.

(n) On Ravi Atri and Vikram Pahal’s instructions, Anurag, Guniya, and Daud booked Nature Valley Resort in Manesar from Satish Dhankad for Rs. 18-20 lakh, with Guniya paying Satish some cash upfront. On February 15, 2024, Vikram Pahal, Anurag, Daud, Guniya, and Mahendra Sharma brought around 400 candidates to the resort. However, as the paper did not arrive that day, the group stayed overnight. That night, Vikram Pahal received a call from Ravi Atri and Rajeev Nayan Mishra, directing him to go to Rohtak Road, Delhi Border, to collect the question paper and answer key for the UP Police Recruitment Exam from Rajan, a resident of Bihar. On the morning of February 16, Anurag and Daud drove to Rohtak Road, collected the papers from Rajan, and returned to Nature Valley Resort At the resort, the group taught approximately 800 candidates on the leaked questions and answers. Mahendra Sharma used his mobile phone to communicate with Ravi Atri, Rajeev Nayan Mishra, and others. Vikram Pahal, along with his associates Vikram Dahiya, Vijay (alias Neetu), Dheeraj (alias Goldy), Monu Sharma (alias Manish), Ajit Chauhan, and Gaurav Chaudhary (alias Gaurav Kumar), also brought candidates to the resort for coaching on the leaked exam content.

(o) Ravi Atri and Rajeev Nayan Mishra provided the leaked question paper to several individuals, including Amit Singh, Pushkar Pandey. Sanjay Kushwaha, Kameshwar Maurya, Ajay Jaiswal, and Subhash Prakash. These individuals accompanied Rajeev Nayan Mishra to Shiv Mahashakti Resort in Rewa District, Madhya Pradesh, on February 16, 2024, where they obtained the leaked question paper for their respective candidates. They agreed to charge Rs.5 lakh per candidate for access to the leaked paper, with payment contingent upon the candidates’ successful completion of the examination. The accused individuals then taught approximately 600 aspirants at the resort on the leaked questions and answers.

3. The gist of the allegations has been given in the paras, quoted above, which is basically extract of the charge-sheet. The appellant was one of the accused who was arrested for commission of offences and also a beneficiary of proceeds of crime. Accordingly, an order for provisional attachment of the property was caused finding proceeds of crime in his hands. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order and thus preferred this appeal mainly raising only one ground during the course of argument leaving others, which is as follows.

Arguments of Ld. Counsel for the appellant:

4. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Adjudicating Authority initiated the proceedings after receipt of the Original Complaint dated 04.09.2024. A show-cause notice was issued by the Adjudicating Authority and was required to be served along with Relied Upon Documents (‘RUDs’) to the defendants including the appellant herein. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that RUDs were not furnished to the appellant so as to defend his case properly. It was despite an application to provide RUDs which was declined by the Adjudicating Authority. Thus, the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and otherwise in contravention of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short “the Act of 2002”).

5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant made a reference to the documents which have been referred by the respondent to show supply of RUDs to the appellant. It was submitted that while the appellant was behind bars, an envelope was sent to him and after showing the said envelope, signature for receipt was obtained but the envelope was not given to the appellant so as to know about the documents under sealed envelope.

6. In the light of the aforesaid and the fact that the appellant sent a letter to the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement on 09.11.2024 for non-supply of the RUDs, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further referred to the email dated 11.11.2024 to show service of the provisional attachment order (“PAO”) with reference of submission of complaint dated 11.09.2025. The aforesaid cannot be taken to be an endorsement of the supply of copy of RUDs and OC.

8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further made a reference to email dated 04.12.2024 to indicate that after release on bail, the appellant made a request for inspection of documents which was permitted by the Adjudicating Authority on 06.12.2024 and thereupon prayer was made to defer the proceedings enabling the appellant to get the copies of the documents and thereupon to contest the show-cause notice. The appellant was not allowed further time despite a specific request being made vide application dated 09.01.2025 received by the respondent on 10.01.2025. A prayer to defer the proceedings was also refused on the ground that an appropriate order has to be passed by the Adjudicating Authority within a period of 180 days and taking the aforesaid plea, the appellant was denied a fair opportunity of hearing.

Thus, the facts aforesaid are sufficient to show that the proceedings were conducted not only in violation of the principles of natural justice but in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 2002. The prayer was accordingly made to cause interference in the impugned order.

9. Ld. Counsel for the appellant did not raise any other arguments than referred to above. It is despite an opportunity provided by this Tribunal to raise any other legal or factual issues. Ld. Counsel closed his arguments without raising any other argument.

10. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the respondent was called upon to raise his argument.

Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent:

11. Ld. Counsel for the respondent vehemently contested the appeal. Elaborate arguments were made to deal with each issue raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. It would be referred while recording the finding in reference to the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant to avoid repetition of the one and the same facts and for sake of brevity.

Findings of the Tribunal:

12. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. In the opening paras, a reference of the allegations against the appellant has been given who remained instrumental in leaking of examination paper of UP Police Constable Recruitment Examination which was held in two schedules on 17.02.2024 and 18.02.2024. The gist of the investigation and the material collected therein has been given which shows that as many as 18 persons were found involved in the racket to leak the paper and circulated for their own benefit. So far as the appellant is concerned, he received the photos of the leaked paper of the examination through Dr. Sharad from Lucknow. The appellant along with Shri Ravi Atri travelled to Ahmedabad where examination paper was stored. The appellant, Shri Rajeev Nayan Mishra stayed at Dashmesh Hotel near the printing press responsible for printing the UPPCRE-23 papers. The appellant along with others went to TCI Warehouse in Kheda, Ahmedabad and was instrumental to reach to the box containing the question paper of UP Police Constable Recruitment Examination. Detailed investigation shows involvement of the appellant to leak the paper for distribution. However, I am not required to go deep in the allegations because it has not been defended by the appellant while pressing the appeal. Therefore, presumption would remain that no defence exists with the appellant regarding his involvement in commission of offences.

13. Ld. Counsel for the appellant raised only one issue while pressing the appeal. It was alleged that the RUDs were not supplied to him and therefore the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is in violation of the principles of natural justice and otherwise in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 2002.

14. To analyze the issue, I have gone through the fact and find that the RUDs were served to the appellant while he was in custody. It was served to him by the police personnel in the month of September, 2024. However, the appellant wrote a letter on 09.11.2024 alleging that no envelope containing RUDs was served to him, rather, signatures were obtained by the police constable without service of the documents and even a copy of the notice was not supplied to him.

15. Ld. Counsel for the appellant pressed upon the letter dated 09.11.2024 to draw conclusion regarding non-supply of the RUDs to the appellant. To analyze the same, I have gone through the letter and find an admission of the appellant regarding his endorsement on receipt of envelope, though, alleged to have not been delivered to him and thereby he could not get any of the documents containing therein. Ld. Counsel for the appellant was asked as to whether any complaint was made against the police official who alleged to have taken endorsement from the appellant for service of the envelope without actual delivery. Ld. Counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that no such complaint was made.

16. Ld. Counsel for the appellant was further asked as to why the issue was not taken up immediately, rather, letter was written almost after two months of the delivery of envelope. The period of two months was substantial for the proceedings to be completed within 180 days as per the mandate of the Act of 2002. Ld. Counsel for the appellant could not give answer to it, rather, submitted that mere endorsement of the envelope does not mean it was delivered to the appellant.

17. The argument aforesaid is not tenable not only for the reason that the appellant had given endorsement for receipt of the envelope but subsequent refusal about the non-receipt of the envelope cannot be accepted. It is more so when he had not submitted any complaint against the police official alleged to have taken endorsement about the receipt of the envelope and furthermore reason of writing a letter to the Enforcement Directorate after expiry of period of two months.

18. The fact aforesaid speaks against the appellant who had received the envelope but to take a technical ground, issue has been raised in reference to the letter dated 09.11.2024 sent by him as an afterthought denying receipt of the envelope while he had put his signature to prove receipt of the envelope.

19. Ld. Counsel for the appellant thereafter referred to the letter dated 11.11.2024. It is alleged that what was served therein is the PAO and not the RUD. The effort of the appellant is to mislead this Tribunal because the respondent never submitted that RUDs’ were given vide email dated 11.11.2024. It was only for the service of the PAO and the OC. It is more so when the appellant is not an illiterate person but is a person who is writing letters with full knowledge and was even acquainted with English language. The appellant has made effort to mislead this Tribunal to project the violation of principles of natural justice.

20. Ld. Counsel for the appellant referred to the application for inspection of the document. It was permitted by the Registrar of Adjudicating Authority and thereby fair opportunity of hearing was given to him. After inspection of the document, the appellant prayed for the copy of the RUDs, as referred by Ld. Counsel for the appellant, leaving other documents referred in the application sent to the Adjudicating Authority. It was to show that after inspection of the document, the appellant again prayed for supply of RUD Volume I and II, though the RUDs’ were served to the appellant while he was in jail. Those documents and show cause notice were sent in the envelope duly endorsed by the appellant by putting his signature(s). Thus, the subsequent demand of RUDs was to gain time so that the proceedings may not be completed within a period of 180 days and accordingly PAO may lapse.

21. Ld. Counsel for the respondent referred to the efforts made by the respondent to serve the copy of the RUDs and notice even prior to delivery in jail. A special messenger was sent to deliver the copy ‘in person’ but the appellant was not found available, rather, stated to be residing with his maternal uncle. The special messenger went to his maternal uncle’s house who informed that the appellant is behind bars. On the aforesaid information, the RUDs and the notice were sent to the appellant in prison and had been received by him. It is a fact that even efforts were made to send the copy of the OC through the Speed Post but it was returned “undelivered”. Thereby the respondent made all the efforts to comply the provisions of the Act of 2002 and even principles of natural justice.

22. At this stage, I am required to refer to the application dated 09.01.2025 sent by the appellant which was received by the respondent on 10.01.2025. The appellant sought supply of the RUDs and 30 days’ time to file reply thereupon from the Adjudicating Authority. The application aforesaid was sent when the proceedings pursuant to the OC was to be completed within 180 days and hence repeated requests of the appellant for supply of RUDs could not have been accepted. The appellant was informed about the same by the Adjudicating Authority vide its letter/email dated 13.01.2025 and even otherwise the appellant was provided more than 30 days’ time to file his reply. The period of 30 days is to be counted from the date of notice which was received by the appellant but to delay the proceedings, a letter was sent subsequent to the period of 30 days of the notice.

23. In the light of the discussions made above, I don’t find that a case is made out to cause interference in the impugned order in reference to the arguments raised by the appellant. The appellant was served with RUDs and therefore allegations raised by the appellant cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.