C. Subramannapa Vs Deputy Director (Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA Delhi)
Katta Subramanya Naidu Land Scam Case: PMLA Attachments Survive If Even One Key Accused Faces Predicate Case :
Katta Subramanya Naidu Land Scam Case: PMLA Attachments Survive as Proceedings Continue Against Key Accused;
PMLA Attachments Survive If Even One Key Accused Faces Predicate Case: SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal Refuses to Lift PAO Despite Discharges
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi, by common order dt. 26-12-2025, dismissed multiple appeals challenging confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No.07/2012 arising out of the Katta Subramanya Naidu land acquisition scam involving M/s ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Ltd.
The appellants, including family members and associates of Shri Katta Subramanya Naidu (former Karnataka Minister), argued that since FIRs/charge-sheets in the scheduled offences were quashed or they were discharged/acquitted by the Special PMLA Court, proceedings under the PMLA and the attached properties could not survive. Reliance was placed on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India (SC).
The Tribunal examined the factual matrix in detail, including the status of each appellant, and noted that although Shri Katta Subramanya Naidu himself stood discharged, one of the principal accused, Shri K.S. Jagadish (son of Katta Subramanya Naidu), continued to face proceedings in the scheduled offence and had neither been discharged nor acquitted.
Applying the ratio of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and subsequent High Court decisions, the Tribunal held that PMLA proceedings and attachments do not automatically lapse unless the scheduled offence is wiped out in its entirety qua all accused. Since the predicate offence against a key accused connected with Katta Subramanya Naidu was still pending, the issue of “proceeds of crime” remained alive. The Tribunal further clarified that attachment under PMLA can extend even to persons who are discharged or not arrayed as accused, so long as the scheduled offence subsists.
Accordingly, the Tribunal upheld the confirmation of the provisional attachment and dismissed all appeals.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI
These appeals have been preferred against the order passed in Original Complaint (OC) No. 158/2012, by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA), whereby Provisional Attachment Order (“PAO”) No. 07/2012, was confirmed.
