AKASH KUMAR PATHAK vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPT. OF REVENUE,BHUBANESWAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV NO.695 of 2026
CNR NO.ODHC010711072026

(In the matter of application under Section 397 and
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 r/w. Sec.
47 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002).

Akash Kumar Pathak Petitioner
…
-versus-
Directorate Enforcement,
Government of India, Ministry
of Finance Department of
Revenue, Bhubaneswar
Opposite Party
…


For Petitioner : Dr. A.K. Pathak, Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr. R.K. Panda, Advocate

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY



DATE OF HEARING: 05.11.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13.11.2026
G. Satapathy, J.


1. This present Criminal Revision is directed
against the impugned order dated 20.08.2026 passed by
the learned Special Judge, CBI-1, Bhubaneswar in
Criminal Misc. Case (PMLA) No. 12 of 2023 not only
granting liberty to the complainant/ applicant to sell the
two seized vehicles; one TATA Harrier car bearing Regd.
No. OD-02-BG-1252 and another BMW car bearing Regd.
No. OD-07-AG-7272, but also extending liberty to the
CRLREV No.695 of 2026 Page 1 of 10

petitioner-cum-accused Akash Kumar Pathak to take
possession of the aforesaid vehicles standing in his name
by furnishing on or before 15.09.2026 the Fixed Deposit
Receipt(FDR) of Rs.55,50,000/- of any Nationalized Bank
at Bhubaneswar in the name of the Director of
Enforcement as security in an application under Rule-4(2)
of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Taking
Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by
the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013 (in short “the
Rules”).
2. The facts as discernible from the impugned
order are that the aforesaid two vehicles were seized by
the Officers of Enforcement Directorate in connection with
the case registered against the petitioner as a part and
parcel of the proceeds of crime and the aforesaid vehicles
were provisionally attached to by the competent Authority
and the provisional attachment was subsequently
confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority U/S. 8 of the
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2022 (in short “the
Act”) in OA Nos. 615 of 2021 and 806/2023, but since the
condition of the vehicles were found to be gradually
CRLREV No.695 of 2026 Page 2 of 10

deteriorating diminishing its value, the Authority
concerned sought for permission of the Special Court to
sell the seized vehicles on the ground that the expenses
of maintenance of these vehicles are likely to exceed its
value in near future.
3. In order to obtain permission from the Special
Court, the ED Authority through the learned Special PP
has filed an application under Rule 4(2) of the Rules to
sell the seized vehicles, but after perusing the valuation
certificate dated 17.03.2025 of the aforesaid two seized
vehicles and the retention order, which was confirmed by
the Adjudicating Authority in OA Nos. 615 of 2021 and
806/2023 respectively, the learned Special Judge, CBI-1,
Bhubaneswar has passed inter-alia the following order:-
“xx xx xx xx Under such view of the matter and
for the interest of both the parties, this court
feels it desirable to grant leave to the applicant
to sell the seized vehicles by exercising the
power Under Rule-4 of the Rules. However
keeping in view the Proviso of the said rule,
accused Akash Pathak, the owner of the
vehicles is given liberty to take possession of
the vehicles standing in his name by furnishing
fixed deposit receipt of Rs.55,50,000/- of any
Nationalized Bank at Bhubaneswar as security
in the name of the Director of Enforcement on
or before 15.09.2026 xx xx xx”.
CRLREV No.695 of 2026 Page 3 of 10

4. Heard, Dr. Abhay Kant Pathak, learned counsel
for the revision petitioner and Mr. Rajat Kumar Panda,
learned counsel for the ED and perused the record. It is
contended on behalf of the petitioner that the value of the
seized vehicles have been obtained a year and half
before, but the seized vehicles are lying exposed to the
vagaries of weather and the value of the seized vehicle is
really diminishing day by day, but the petitioner being the
registered owner of the seized vehicles, may be allowed
to retain the vehicles in interim custody to preserve its
utility by furnishing property surety, instead of cash
surety in the form of FDR as ordered by the learned
Special Judge, CBI-1, Bhubaneswar. Dr. Pathak,
accordingly, prays to allow the Revision by setting aside
the impugned order and granting interim custody of the
seized vehicle to the revision-petitioner on furnishing
property surety instead of cash surety.
4.1. On the other hand, Mr. Rajat Kumar Panda,
learned counsel for ED submits that the learned Special
Judge, CBI-1, Bhubaneswar has passed the order rightly,
CRLREV No.695 of 2026 Page 4 of 10

since Rule-4(2) of the Rules only provides for retaining of
seized property by the accused on furnishing the value of
the property by way of FDR and thereby, the impugned
order having been passed in right perspective may not
kindly be interfered with in this revision. Accordingly, Mr.
Panda prays to dismiss the Revision Petition.
5. Admittedly, the aforesaid two vehicles i.e. TATA
Harrier bearing Regd. No. OD-02-BG-1252 and the BMW
car bearing Regd. No. OD-07-AG-7272 have been seized
in connection with the case, but the aforesaid two
vehicles belong to the petitioner. It is not disputed that
the vehicles in question have in fact been attached by the
order of the Deputy Director, ED U/S.5 of the Act on
29.12.2021 and on 31.01.2023, which have been
subsequently confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority
vide order dated 18.08.2022 and 30.06.2023 passed in
OA Nos. 615 of 2021 & 806 of 2023 in an application
U/S.8 of the Act, but these orders have never been
challenged by the petitioner in any forum.
6. A plain perusal of the provision of Sec.5 of the
Act would go to suggest that the Deputy Director has
CRLREV No.695 of 2026 Page 5 of 10

authority to provisionally attach such property which is
considered to be proceeds of crime, for a period not
exceeding 180 days and the Director or any other Officer,
who provisionally attaches any property U/S.5(1) of the
Act shall, within a period of 30 days from such
attachment, file a complaint stating the facts of such
attachment before the Adjudicating Authority. Similarly,
Sec.8(3) of the Act confers power of the Adjudicating
Authority to pass order in writing confirming the
attachment of the property U/S.5(1) of the Act or
retention of property. Be that as it may, Sec.8(7) of the
Act provides that where the trial under this Act cannot be
conducted by reason of death of the accused or the
accused being declared as a proclaimed offender or for
any other reason or having commenced, but could not be
concluded, the Special Court shall, on an application
moved by the Director or a person claiming to be entitled
to possession of a property in respect of which an order
has been passed under sub-section (3) of section 8, pass
appropriate orders regarding confiscation or release of
the property , as the case may be, involved in the
CRLREV No.695 of 2026 Page 6 of 10

offence of money-laundering after having regard to the
material before it. A harmonious construction of the
aforesaid three provisions, there appears no dispute
about the power of the Authority for passing order of
attachment and of the Court passing order for
confiscation or release of the property.
7. Addressing the submission advanced for the
petitioner with regard to release of the vehicle on
furnishing property as surety, this Court considers it
nd
proper to reiterate the 2 proviso appended to Rule-4(2)
of the Rules, which reads as under :-
Provided further that where the movable
“
property is a mode of conveyance of any
description, the authorized officer, after
obtaining its valuation report from the
Motor Licensing Authority or any other
authority, as the case may be, may accept
and retain the fixed deposit receipt of a
nationalized bank equivalent to the value
of the movable property as security in the
name of Director of Enforcement and send
a report to the Special Court or
Adjudicating Authority, as the case may
be, for information and appropriate
action .”

8. A careful scrutiny of the aforesaid provision
makes it very clear that the Authorized Officer may
CRLREV No.695 of 2026 Page 7 of 10

accept and retain the fixed deposit receipt of a
Nationalized Bank equivalent to the value of the movable
property as security in the name of Director of
Enforcement and send a report to the Special Court or
Adjudicating Authority as the case may be for information
and appropriate action and, therefore, if the aforesaid
provision read together with the provision of Sec.8(7) of
the Act makes it very clear that the Special Court can
direct for release of the seized property including vehicle
in favour of the person claiming to be entitled to
possession of the seized property thereof.
9. In this case, the learned Special Judge, CBI-1,
Bhubaneswar has passed order by taking into account the
valuation report of the seized vehicle dated 17.03.2025
which is more than one and half years back, but this
Court considers that the learned Special Judge ought to
have passed the order by taking a recent valuation report
of the seized vehicles, however, the impugned order
allowing the applicant to sell the vehicle by providing
liberty to the petitioner to retain the vehicle by producing
the relevant surety amount needs to be modified to the
CRLREV No.695 of 2026 Page 8 of 10

extent of recent valuation of the vehicles. Undeniably, if
the petitioner wants to retain his vehicles, he can be
allowed to retain the same by producing FDR of a
Nationalized Bank equivalent to the value of the aforesaid
two vehicles and if he fails to do so within a reasonable
time, the Authorized Officer may sell such vehicles with
the leave of the Special Court or the Adjudicating
Authority as the case may be and deposit the sell
proceeds in the nearest Government Treasury or branch
of the State Bank of India or its subsidiaries or in any
Nationalized Bank in fixed deposit and retain the receipt
thereof.
10. In the result, the Criminal Revision stands
disposed of accordingly by modifying the impugned order
for retaining the vehicle by the revision-petitioner by
furnishing fixed deposit receipt equivalent to the value of
the seized vehicles as determined by the Authority.
Consequently, the learned Special Judge, CBI-1,
Bhubaneswar shall obtain a fresh valuation report of the
seized vehicles and pass order accordingly providing
opportunity to the petitioner to produce fixed deposit
CRLREV No.695 of 2026 Page 9 of 10

receipt of any Nationalized Bank equivalent to the recent
value of the aforesaid two vehicles in the name of the
Director of Enforcement as security, failing which the
seized vehicles have to be dealt with in accordance with
law and Rules made applicable thereto.
11. It is clarified that the learned Special Judge,
CBI-1, Bhubaneswar shall pass appropriate order qua the
seized vehicles in this case within 15 days of receipt of
the valuation report of the seized vehicles by providing
opportunity to the petitioner and the ED.

(G. Satapathy)
Judge











Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 13 day of November, 2026/S.Sasmal

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 13-Nov-2026 18:19:57
CRLREV No.695 of 2026 Page 10 of 10