Rashid Ali Vs Deputy Director (Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA Delhi)
SAFEMA Tribunal Upholds PMLA Attachment After Accused’s Death, Directs Legal Heir to Seek Relief Before Special Court
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA disposed of the appeal filed by Rashid Ali, legal heir of the deceased Sabir Ali, holding that the provisional attachment of property under the PMLA does not become invalid merely because the accused died before the attachment order was issued. The case arose from an alleged scholarship scam in Uttar Pradesh involving fraudulent disbursement of government funds through fake student records at Ajijia Montessori School, where Sabir Ali served as Manager. The ED attached agricultural land to the extent of ₹9.24 lakh, representing the alleged proceeds of crime or their equivalent value.
The Tribunal rejected the appellant’s contention that proceedings could not continue after the death of Sabir Ali. It distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in U. Subhadramma v. State of A.P., holding that the attachment mechanism under the PMLA is materially different from the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance considered in that case. It observed that Section 5 of the PMLA does not require prior notice before provisional attachment, and the statutory requirement under Section 8(1) was duly satisfied by issuing notice to the legal heir, who was entitled to represent the estate before the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal also upheld attachment of the property as “equivalent value” under Section 2(1)(u), relying on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, Axis Bank, Prakash Industries, and Dilbag Singh, while noting that Seema Garg no longer represents the correct legal position.
While declining to interfere with the attachment, the Tribunal clarified that Section 8(7) of the PMLA specifically provides a remedy where the trial cannot be concluded due to the death of the accused. It therefore disposed of the appeal with liberty to the legal heir to approach the Special Court under Section 8(7) for appropriate orders regarding confiscation or release of the attached property after consideration of the available material.
Cases Discussed
- Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement vs. Amlendu Pandey (D) Through LR (Delhi HC), Misc. in Appeal (PMLA) 8/2022, Judgment dated 21.11.2025
- Dilbag Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (Punjab & Haryana HC), MANU/PH/3575/2024, Judgment dated 13.11.2024
- Prakash Industries Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi HC), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2087
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (SC), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929
- Subhadramma v. State of A. P. (SC), (2016) 7 SCC 797 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri) 236
- Axis Bank (Delhi HC), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7854
- Amlendu Pandey vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai, FPA-PMLA-1431/MUM/2016
- Seema Garg Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (Punjab & Haryana HC), 2020 SCC OnLine Punjab & Haryana 738
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI
This Order disposes of the Appeal No. FPA-PMLA-4340/ LKW/2021 filed by Shri Rashid Ali, against the Order dated 21.09.2021 (Impugned Order) passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in the Original Complaint No. 1462/2021 (OC). The Provisional Attachment Order No. 05/2021 dated 26.03.2021 (PAO) issued in ECIR No. ECIR/18/PMLA/LZO/2012 dated 30.07.2012 was confirmed vide the Impugned Order. The immovable property comprising of agricultural land of area 0.113 Hectares, Gata No. 2908 (Ga), Village Balrampur Dehat, Pargana Tehsil and District Balrampur bearing Sale Deed No. 1523/2009 dated 08.04.2009 to the extent of Rs. 9,24,450/- of the total value Rs. 60,98,000/- was attached.
