CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 1 of 46

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 21

st

August, 2025

Pronounced on: 9

th

April, 2026

+ CRL.A. 1071/2025 & CRL.M.A. 22223/2025 (stay)

SANJAY BHANDARI

S/o Late Shri Rajinder Kumar Bhandari,

B-217, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi,

Presently residing at Flat 18, 17 Great

Cumberland Place, London, W1H7AS,

United Kingdom

.....Appellant

Through: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.

Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Aparajita Jamwal

and Mr. Ankit Sharma, Advocates.

versus

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Represented through its Deputy Director,

10-A, Jamnagar House,

Akbar Road, New Delhi – 110001

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG with Mr. Zoheb

Hossain, Spl. Counsel, Mr. Vivek Gurnani,

Panel Counsel, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr.

Pranjal Tripathi and Mr. Satyam, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The Statutory Appeal under Section 17 of the Fugitive Economic

Offenders Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ―FEO Act‖) has been filed

on behalf of the Appellant, Sanjay Bhandari to challenge the Impugned

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 2 of 46

Judgment dated 05.07.2025 of learned Special Judge (CBI) PC Act-10, New

Delhi declaring the Appellant a Fugitive Economic Offender (FEO).

2. The Respondent/ED filed a Misc. Application No. 249/2019 on

13.12.2019, before the learned Special Judge under the Fugitive Economic

Offenders Act, seeking a declaration of the Appellant as a Fugitive

Economic Offender.

3. The brief facts as stated in the Misc. Application, was that ED is a

statutory Agency under Fugitive Economic Offender‟s Act (FEO Act),

entrusted with the authority to implement the provisions of the Act. It is

also a Competent Agency to investigate into offences under Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002.

4. It was stated that a Prosecution Complaint bearing CC No.2121/2019

dated 22.12.2018 under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and

Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act (Black Money Act), 2015 was initiated

against the Appellant Sanjay Bhandari, by the Income Tax Authorities,

which is pending adjudication before the learned ACMM. It disclosed that

the Accused/Petitioner had wilfully not disclosed various mandatory

information in his Returns of Income, relating to foreign assets (including

financial interest in any entity) acquired by him, outside India.

5. Further, by acquisition of Al-Rahma Trust in Dubai and a change in

its structure as a part of the pre-meditated scheme to dissociate himself from

all his offshore entities/foreign assets and by fabricating and back dating the

documents, he made another attempt to wilfully cause such circumstances to

exist, which will have the effect of enabling him to evade tax, penalty or

interest chargeable or imposable under the Black Money Act, as envisaged

in Section 51(3) of the Black Money Act.

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 3 of 46

6. It was further stated in the Misc. Application that since Section 51 of

the Black Money Act is a Scheduled Offence under the Fugitive Economic

Offenders Act, 2018 and the proceeds of crime involved were in excess of

Rs.100 crores, NBW was issued against the Petitioner by the ACMM, Tis

Hazari, Delhi in the complaint, which is still pending.

7. Simultaneously, the Enforcement Directorate is also conducting

investigation against the Petitioner in ECIR/HQ/03/2017, for the offence of

Money Laundering.

8. Another criminal case under Official Secrets Act vide FIR

No.173/2016 has been registered by Delhi Police, wherein he has been

declared a Proclaimed Offender.

9. The ED had reasons to believe that the Accused/Petitioner is a

Fugitive Economic Offender, which are :

(a) The Income Tax Authorities have filed a

Prosecution Complaint bearing CC No.2121/2019 dated

22.12.2018 under Section 51 Black Money Act;

(b) An open ended NBW was issued against the

Accused on 31.10.2019. In this Complaint on the

reasonable believe that he was deliberately evading the

process of law;

(c) The proceeds of crime in the Scheduled

offence under the FEO Act, is in excess of Rs.100 Crores,

which has been confirmed by the Income Tax Authorities

vide communication dated 09.07.2019.

(d) The material on record and the reason to

believe show the complicity of the Accused regarding the

commission of the scheduled offence, have been duly

provided in the Prosecution Complaint filed by the Income

Tax Department;

(e) The Accused had left the country under

suspicious circumstances evading the process of law in

India, by staying outside the jurisdiction of Indian Court, so

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 4 of 46

as to not face criminal prosecution. A Look Out Circular

dated 14.02.2017 has been issued at the instance of ED.

Further, a Red Corner Notice dated 16.10.2017 has also

been issued against him, in another FIR No.173/2016

investigated by Crime Branch, New Delhi in which he has

been declared as Proclaimed Offender and his Passport had

been impounded by the Regional Passport Office; and

(f) The Accused is still evaded the process of law

despite being aware and having knowledge of the

aforementioned developments and has deliberately chosen

not to return to India.

10. The undisclosed Bank Accounts and Properties held by Mr. Sanjay

Bhandari outside India, are tabulated in the Prosecution Complaint filed by

the Income Tax Authorities, as under:

Details of Foreign Assets of Sh. Sanjay Bhandari

Sr

No

s.

Nature of

Asset

Details

of asset

Location/

Country

Relation with

Sh. Sanjay

Bhandari

Time

period

Value/

Amou

nt

Exhc

ange

Rates

in INR

1. Share holding

in Company

Offset

India

Solution

s, FZC,

UAE

UAE Shareholder of

90% shares

23.02.

2009

1.35

Lakh

Dirha

m

13.74 1854900

2. Bank A/c of

Offset India

Solutions

FZC, UAE

P Emirates

Internatio

nal Bank,

Dubai

Authorised

Signatory

Feb-14 1878

AED

16.85 31644.3

3. Bank A/c of

Offset India

Solutions

FZC, UAE

1021507

575303

Emirates

Internatio

nal Bank,

Dubai

Authorised

Signatory

18

Sept

2010

to 04

Jun

2012

19057

82

Euro

64.7 1233040

95.4

4. Bank A/c of

Offset India

Solutions

FZC, UAE

1021507

575304

Emirates

Internatio

nal Bank,

Dubai

Authorised

Signatory

28

July

2011

to 28

July

2012

98610

37

CHF

56 5522180

72

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 5 of 46

5. Share holding

in Company

SANTE

CH

INTERN

ATION

AL FZC

UAE Director and

majority share

holder

21.02.

2006

11700

0

Dirha

m

12.5 1462500

6. Bank Account

of

INTERNATI

ONAL FZC

1021497

657901

Emirates

Internatio

nal Bank,

Dubai

Authorised

Signatory

7TH

May

2009

to 26th

Nov

2016

15600

040

USD

46 7176018

40

7. Bank Account

of

INTERNATI

ONAL FZC

1011497

657902

Emirates

Internatio

nal Bank,

Dubai

Authorised

Signatory

7TH

May

2009

to 25

May

2016

13151

078

AED

12.5 1643884

75

8. Bank Account

of SANTECH

INTERNATI

ONAL FZC

3217664

001

Sharjah

Islamic

Bank,

Dubai

Co-signatory 19 Feb

2006

to 08

Nov

2016

150,50

0 AED

12.5 1881250

9. Share holding

in Company

Serra

Dues

Technol

ogies

Ltd

Dubai Beneficial

Owner

23.07.

2009

1000

AED

12.7 12700

10. Bank Account

of Serra Dues

Tech Ltd.

1200120

701

Standard

Chartered

Bank,

Dubai

Authorised

Signatory

09.02.

2010

50,000

AED

12.68 634000

11. Immovable

Properties

Flats

owned

by

Shamian

Gros-1

INC

Grosvener

Hill

Court,

Bourdon

Street,

London,

UK

Sanjay

Bhandari

bought all

shares of

Shamlam Gros-

1 INC for Rs.10

Cr in 2013

2013 22.47

lakh

pounds

(curren

t value

of

pro83.

88pert

y)

83.88 188478

360

12. Share holding

in Company

Petro

Global

Technol

ogies

UAE Sanjay

Bhandari is

1/3rd owner

06.04.

2009

49,990

Dirha

m

12.7 634873

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 6 of 46

Ltd.

13. Immovable

properties

Property

Nos. 12,

Ellerton

House,

Bryansto

n

Square,

London,

Owned

by

Vertex

London,

UK

Sanjay

Bhandari

purchased

shares of

Vertex

Management

Holding

Limied, MHL,

BVI to acquire

property on

14.12.2009.

14.12.

2009

19

lakh

pound

75.92 1442641

50

14. Bank

Accounts held

by Sanjay

Bhandari

1014302

2546601

Emirates

NBD

Bank,

Dubai

Owner of the

accounts

04.03.

2011

to

22.06.

2016

46558

35

AED

15 6983752

5

15. Bank

Accounts held

by Sanjay

Bhandari

1014301

546602

Emirates

NBD

Bank,

Dubai

Owner of the

accounts

04.03.

2011

to

22.06.

2016

19312

81 US

Dollar

58.03 1120722

36.4

16. Immovable

properties

C-303,

Maurya

Grandeu

r, Palms

Jumeirh,

Dubai

Dubai Sanjay

Bhandari

purchased this

property on

13.10.2014

13.10.

2014

54783

50

AED

16.64 9115974

4

17. Immovable

properties

2414,

Burj

Khalifa,

UAE

UAE Sanjay

Bhandari

purchased this

property on

09.11.2014

09.11.

2014

23500

00

Dirha

m

16.75 3936250

0

Total 22091,9

8,865.13

11. During the investigations, it was found that the Accused was having

various properties not only in the foreign countries, but also in India as well.

These assets were found either in the name of the Accused or held by

Benamidar of the Accused, as the properties were acquired from the funds of

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 7 of 46

the Accused. The names of various Companies/ benami holders were

mentioned in the Application filed, before the learned ACMM.

12. The information available about the whereabouts of the Accused, is

that he is presently residing in United Kingdom where he has substantial

pecuniary interest. All the efforts made by ED to bring back the fugitive to

India to face criminal proceedings, have not been successful till date. The

list of properties/value of the properties connected to proceed of crime for

which confiscation is sought, has also been filed.

13. It was thus, submitted that since the proceeds of crime were more

than Rs.100 Crore and Non Bailable Warrants have already been issued, the

Accused fell within the scope of Section 2(1)(f) of the FEO.

14. Hence, a prayer was made that that the Notice under Section 10 of the

FEO requiring the Accused to appear in person before the Court and to the

individuals/entities mentioned in the Application who have interest in the

properties which are sought to be confiscated, may be issued and the

Accused may be declared Fugitive.

15. The Appellant/Respondent, Mr. Sanjay Bhandari had filed his Reply

before the learned Special Judge in this MISC. APPL. 249/2019 wherein the

Appellant/Respondent denied and disputed each and every contention made

by ED. A preliminary objection was taken that no case was made out against

the Appellant and the ingredients of the offence sought to be invoked, would

not even prima facie meet out. The chronology of the events, was explained

in the Reply wherein it was stated that the First Provisional Attachment

Order No. 03/17 under PMLA in relation to ECIR/HQ/03/2017 was issued,

indiscriminately attaching various properties totalling to over Rs.21 Crores

of the Accused, his wife and certain Companies in which he was a

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 8 of 46

shareholder. In relation to ECIR/HQ/03/17. It was asserted that the said

ECIR was in relation to the scheduled offence under 51 of the Black Money

Act. The Appellant asserted that though, the Provisional Attachment Order

had been issued to attach various properties and allegedly owned by the

Appellant but it was much prior to the date of alleged offence and even prior

to coming into force of the Black Money Act. Pursuant to this Provisional

Attachment Order, the Complaint No. 784/2017 dated 28.06.2017 was filed

before the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA, seeking confirmation of the

Provisional Attachment Order.

16. The Appellant further asserted that Writ Petition (Criminal)

No.2456/2017 was filed by Petitioner Sanjay Bhandari seeking quashing of

ECIR/HQ/03/2017. This Court on 29.08.2017, directed the ED to file its

Status Report and the Writ Petition is pending adjudication. It was claimed

that the said Writ Petition is pending adjudication before this Court.

17. The Appellant further asserted that the Adjudicating Authority

under PMLA, rejected and dismissed the Complaint No.784/2017 vide

Judgment dated 17.11.2017 and consequently did not confirm the

Provisional Attachment Order dated 01.06.2017. The reason for rejection

was that no scheduled offence under Part C of PMLA and specifically no

offence of cross border implications including Section 51 Black Money Act,

was made out. It was held that “the case was out of the purview of the

scheduled offence and hence the PMLA Act was not applicable”.

18. It is further submitted that the Appeal is still pending adjudication

before PMLA Appellate Tribunal and no stay has been granted against the

Judgment dated 17.11.2017.

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 9 of 46

19. It is further submitted that the assets attached vide Order dated

26.12.2017 by ED under FEMA, was challenged in WP(C) No.4000/2018,

whereby this Court vide Order dated 12.07.2018 permitted the Companies to

operate the bank accounts, subject to the balance being maintained as on the

said date.

20. The Appellant submitted that on the very next date i.e. 13.07.2018,

the Directorate of Enforcement issued Provisional Attachment Order

No.5/2018 dated 13.07.2018 under PMLA, even though this Order failed to

meet even the basic requirements under PMLA.

21. It is further submitted that the Provisional Attachment Order

No.5/2018 dated 13.07.2018 and the subsequent proceedings before the

Adjudicating Authority, was challenged in WP(C) No.10106/2018. This

Court had stayed the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, vide

Order dated 04.10.2018.

22. Thereafter, the Income Tax Department filed Criminal Complaint

No.2121/2019 dated 22.12.2018 under Section 51 Black Money Act against

the Accused before Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. NBW dated 02.07.2019 have

been issued against him which have been challenged in Criminal Revision

Petition No.444/2019, which ultimately was dismissed on 23.10.2019.

23. The Appellant further submitted that the Directorate of Enforcement

thereafter had filed the present Misc. Application No. 249/2019 dated

13.12.2019 in which the Summons were issued against the Respondent. The

Accused then filed Crl. MC No. 805/2020 for quashing of Complaint No.

2121/2019 under Section 51 of the Black Money Act, which was pending

consideration before this Court.

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 10 of 46

24. The Appellant further asserted that the Income-Tax Department had

filed its Status Report/Counter-Affidavit in Crl. MC No. 805/2020 wherein

it had admitted that the assessment under the Black Money Act, has still not

been carried out.

25. The Appellant had also sought quashing of the present Misc.

Application No. 249/2019 vide Crl. MC No. 1002/2020, which is also

pending consideration before this Court. The Appellant further asserted that

the foreign properties/assets in question, were not owned by the Accused

and were in fact owned by others. The Directorate of Enforcement had failed

to meet its evidentiary requirements under Section 16 FEO Act. The

Appellant/Accused had obtained information from his own efforts and due

diligence to show the ownership of the foreign assets being in the name of

other persons. It was claimed that ED, Income Tax Department and CBI,

have been making undue harassment and false prosecution has been initiated

against the Appellant, who has been constrained to leave the country.

26. It was further submitted that the essential ingredient for applicability

of FEO Act, were not made out in the Misc. Application, which was liable to

be dismissed. The FEO Act can apply only in cases where NBWs are issued

against the accused persons where the proceeds of crime of Scheduled

Offence is Rs.100 Crores or more aside from the bold averment of the

amount of Scheduled Offence being more than Rs.100 Crores. There is not a

shred of evidence whatsoever to show the value of the proceeds of crime as

asserted. It was further claimed that there was only one communication

dated 09.07.2019 from Income-Tax Department, which was the basis for the

Miscellaneous Application. However, in the absence of any conclusive

assessment against the Accused under Black Money Act, no proceedings

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 11 of 46

under FEO Act, could have been initiated, which are premature and

politically motivated. A mere Letter from IT Department to ED, cannot form

the basis for proving that the Accused had committed the Scheduled

Offence.

27. The Miscellaneous Application under FEO Act, entails very serious

consequences including confiscation of his property and barring him from

defending civil claims and effectively amounting to economic death penalty.

It was further asserted that the Directorate of Enforcement had failed to

appreciate that the mandatory time period for Section 11of Black Money

Act, for carrying out the assessment, has expired and assessment has

admittedly yet not been completed, therefore, the entire commercial

proceedings are without jurisdiction.

28. Enforcement also had to satisfy themselves for “reasons to believe on

the basis of the material in their possession but there is no application of

mind but only mechanical reproduction of the words used in the statute.”

The requirement of reason to believe had not been met in the Miscellaneous

Applications.

29. The entirety of the Complaint No. 212/2019 under Section 51 of the

Black Money Act, failed to reveal any wilful attempt to evade the tax and,

therefore, which has not been appreciated by filing this Miscellaneous

Application. As one of the example, the Appellant had explained that one of

the properties alleged to be owned by him is Property No. 2414, Floor No.

24, Building No. 1, AI Noujoum Tower, Burj Khalifa, UAE, which is

claimed to be owned by one Mr. Sanjay Bhandari having Passport No.

Z2042109 but born in Calcutta. However, he is a different person, who has

no link with the Accused.

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 12 of 46

30. In the Miscellaneous Complaint itself, ED had admitted that one of

the alleged properties i.e. Property No. E-12, Ellerton House, Bryanston

Square, London, was allotted bought in 2009 and sold in June, 2010 by the

Accused. Therefore, assuming the claim of the ED to be correct, the alleged

property cannot come within the purview of Black Money Act, which was

enacted and commenced on 01.07.2015. The present arbitrariness and non-

application of mind of ED is, therefore, evident on the record.

31. The Appellant further asserted that under Section 16(1) of FEO Act,

the burden of proving that the Accused is FEO and that his Property is

proceeds of crime, lies on the ED. However, ED has miserably failed to

satisfy these averments. All the assets alleged to be proceeds of crime were

in existence. Even prior to coming into effect of the Black Money Act in

July, 2015 and cannot be termed as proceeds of crime.

32. Moreover, essential requirement is that the proceeds of crime must be

derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to Scheduled

Offence. There cannot be any inverted proceeds of crime independent of the

Scheduled Offence and more importantly the proceeds of crime must come

into existence only after the commission of the Scheduled Offence. In the

present case, the proceeds of crime were in existence, much prior to

commencement of Black Money Act, therefore, on this ground itself, the

Miscellaneous Application ought to be rejected.

33. Reliance is placed on M/s Himachal Emta Power Ltd. vs. Union of

India and Ors., decided on 23.08.2018 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court. It is further asserted that the first Provisional Order No. 03/2017

dated 01.06.2017 had been challenged before the adjudicating authority

under PMLA, who vide Order dated 01.06.2017 categorically held that they

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 13 of 46

cannot be any prosecution under Section 51 of the Black Money Act,

without first completely making an assessment and that the Scheduled

Offence under PMLA, was not made out. It was held that the alleged

properties were in existence prior to enactment of the Black Money Act and

therefore, cannot be termed as proceeds of crime.

34. Furthermore, Adjudicating Authority vide Judgment dated 17.11.2017

had observed that no Scheduled Offence had been made out.

35. It was further asserted that the Directorate of Enforcement had also

attached the assets of certain Companies under Foreign Exchange

Management Act in which the Accused is a shareholder vide Order dated

26.12.2017. The first Provisional Order No. 03/2017 dated 01.06.2017 and

thereafter, vide Judgement dated 17.11.2017 such attachment, has been

rejected. The Order was challenged by the Appellant in W.P.(C) 4000/2018

before this Court wherein vide Order dated 12.07.2018, it has Permitted the

Companies to operate the Bank Account subject to the balance being

maintained on the said date.

36. The Directorate of Enforcement then issued Provisional Attachment

Order No. 5/2018 dated 13.07.2018, which got challenged before the

Adjudicating Authority and before this Court in W.P.(C) 10106/2018 and

this Court on 04.10.2018, has stayed the proceedings before the

Adjudicating Authority with the observations that “Prima facie, it would not

be for the concerned authority to once again pass a provisional order of

attachment, when the issue at hand has been substantially adjudicated by the

Adjudicating Authority.” It is submitted that the acts of the ED, are in

passing attachment Orders one after the other against the Appellant, has

caused immense trauma and unnecessary harassment especially when this

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 14 of 46

Court has repeatedly stayed the actions of Directorate Enforcement, who is

acting solely on the basis of the political consideration. It was claimed that

this Miscellaneous Application was mala fide and liable to be dismissed.

37. Thereafter, Criminal Complaint No.2121/2019 was again listed and

Non Bailable Warrants were issued against the Accused on 31.10.2019.

38. The learned ACMM in the impugned Judgment dated 05.07.2025

considered the rival contentions of the parties and concluded that ED had

been able to make out a case under Section 2(1)(m) of FEO Act and Warrant

of Arrest i.e. NBW had been issued against Sanjay Bhandari by the Court of

ACMM, Delhi, in the Complaint under Section 51 of the Black Money. The

NBW was pending against him when that he had left India and is presently

residing in UK as evident on the material referred, in order to avoid criminal

prosecution under the Complaint under Section 51 Black Money Act. The

Court also found that the total value of the schedule offence is Rs.100 crores

or more, which is the requisite condition under Section 2(m) of the FEO Act.

Therefore, on being satisfied, Sanjay Bhandari was declared as a fugitive

economic offender under Section 12(1) of Fugitive Economic Offenders

Act, 2018.

39. Aggrieved by the said Declaration, the present statutory Appeal

under Section 17 FEO Act has been filed, against the Judgment dated

05.07.2025.

40. It is asserted that the Scheduled Offence for seeking declaration of the

Appellant as fugitive, was Section 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed

Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (hereinafter

referred to as ―Black Money Act‖), which deals with wilful attempt to evade

tax.

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 15 of 46

41. The FEO Act gives a detailed procedure to be followed to declare a

person as Fugitive. As per Sections 2(1)(f) read with Section 2(1)(m) of the

FEO Act, the necessary ingredients for declaring an individual as a Fugitive

Economic Offender, are as follows:

(i) There must be a warrant of arrest against a person

in a Schedule Offence;

(ii) The said person must have left India to avoid

prosecution or being abroad, refuses to return to India to

face criminal prosecution;

(iii) The value involved in the Schedule Offence is

Rs.100 Crores or more.

42. Section 4 of FEO sets out the procedure to be followed to declare a

person Fugitive Economic Offender. Section 4(1) specifically requires a

Director to have “reasons to believe”, to be recorded in writing based on

material in his possession. Section 4(2) (a) and (c) requires that the Officer

must be satisfied that a person fulfils the definition of Section 2(1)(f) read

with Section 2(1)(m), in every respect.

43. Furthermore, Section 10 stipulates that where an Application under

Section 4 is filed, the learned Special Judge shall issue a Notice to the

person named therein. The use of the words “duly filed” indicates that the

learned Special Court must apply its mind to examine whether the

Application satisfies the requirements under Section 4, FEO Act.

44. Section 12 provides for the declaration of FEO, after giving an

opportunity of being heard to each side. Where the learned Special Court is

satisfied that no case is made out for declaring an individual as a FEO, he

will be discharged as per Section 12(9) and the property so attached, would

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 16 of 46

be released. Therefore, the declaration of an individual as a FEO is not

automatic and the Court has to consider whether the requirements for

declaring a person as a FEO, are made out.

45. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court vide Order dated

24.12.2019 took cognizance and issued summons against the Appellant.

46. On 12.02.2020, the Appellant filed Crl.MC No. 805/2020 before this

Court seeking quashing of the Criminal Complaint No.2121/2019 dealing

with Section 51 of the Black Money Act, 2015 (which was the Scheduled

Offence for the proceedings under the Fugitive Economic Offender Act) on

the ground that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 51 of

the Black Money Act, 2015, was not made out. This Court vide Order dated

24.02.2020 directed the Income Tax Department to produce the evidence on

the basis of which it had sent the Letter dated 09.07.2019 to the Directorate

of Enforcement wherein it was stated that the value of the Scheduled

Offence is Rs.100 Crores or more. This Crl. MC No. 805/2020 was

dismissed, vide the Judgment dated 08.11.2024.

47. The Appellant filed SLP (Crl) No. 18321/2024 in relation to the

proceedings under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act. The Apex Court

has disposed of the SLP vide Order dated 21.01.2025 with the direction that

the accused can raise all legal and factual issues before the concerned

authority, which shall be decided without being influenced by the

observations of this Court.

48. The Apex Court also condoned the delay in filing of statutory Appeal

under Black Money Act, against the Assessment Order. Consequently, the

Appellant filed Appeal under Section 15 of Black Money Act on 30.01.2025

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 17 of 46

challenging the Assessment Order dated 23.03.2020, which is pending

adjudication before the Commissioner (Appeals).

49. Further, the Appellant vide Crl. MC No. 1002/2020 dated 19.02.2020

before this Court, sought quashing of present Misc. Application No.

249/2019 under the Fugitive Economic Offender Act and all proceedings

emanating therefrom. However, this Petition was dismissed by this Court

vide Judgment dated 08.11.2024.

50. The impugned Judgment dated 05.07.2025 was passed declaring the

Appellant as a Fugitive Economic Offender, without taking into

consideration that the essential ingredients required under the Act, are not

made out. The matter is now listed for further proceedings under Section 12

of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, for confiscation of the assets, on

02.08.2025. Without, the Accused being declared as a Fugitive Economic

Offender, the Civil Appeals filed by the Accused, are being deferred.

51. PMLA Appeal No.12/2023 filed by the Appellant in this Court, has

been adjourned on the ground that further proceedings under the FEOA, is

pending.

52. The grounds of challenge are that the Government of India, had sent

Extradition requests for two proceedings/trials i.e. Section 51 of the Black

Money Act and Section 3/4 of PMLA, to the United Kingdom.

53. The Extradition request was initially allowed by the Westminster

Magistrate Court, but was subsequently reversed in Appeal by the High

Court vide Judgment dated 28.02.2025, whereby denying the Government of

India‟s Extradition request, for these two offences.

54. Subsequently, a Petition for Leave to Appeal to the UK Supreme

Court, was filed by the Government of India, which was rejected by the

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 18 of 46

High Court vide Order dated 08.04.2025. Consequently, the Appellant now

has a legal right to reside in the United Kingdom and the Government of

India, is bound by this Judgment of the UK Court.

55. The next ground of challenge is that there is no subsisting NBW,

which is a pre-requisite for declaring a person as fugitive. It is stated that

under the India UK Extradition Treaty, it is mandatory that there should be

non-bailable warrants against an Accused person, who is sought to be

extradited. In the Extradition request for the offence under Section 51 of the

Black Money Act, sent to the United Kingdom, the Government of India had

relied upon and filed the Non-Bailable Warrants dated 31.10.2019, issued by

the Tis Hazari Court, in the trial of the offence under Section 51 of the Black

Money Act. The very same warrant is also relied upon by the Respondent,

for the proceedings under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act.

56. The warrant for the proceedings under Section 51 of the Black Money

Act, was executed in the UK on 08.07.2021. The procedure followed was

that pursuant to the warrant issued by the Indian Court under Section 51 of

the Black Money Act, the Appellant was arrested in the UK and thereafter,

granted Bail. The Warrant formed the basis for the Extradition proceedings

for the offence under Section 51 of the Black Money Act, in which the

Appellant has been ultimately discharged.

57. The very same warrant is also relied upon by the Respondent, for the

proceedings under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, which already

stands exhausted.

58. It is further submitted that the Government of India, had sent

Extradition request for proceedings/trials under Section 51 of the Black

Money Act and Section 3/4 of PMLA, which has been finally denied by this

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 19 of 46

Court vide Judgment dated 28.02.2025, wherein the Leave to Appeal to UK

Supreme Court, has been denied by the High Court, vide Order dated

08.04.2025. It is further submitted that the Appellant has succeeded in his

right not to return to India, to face criminal prosecution as it would violate

his human rights.

59. The Complaint under Section 51 of the Black Money Act, was filed

on 22.12.2018, when the Appellant was in the UK. The Appellant cannot be

said to come in the definition of Section 2(1)(f) (ii) of the FEO Act,

especially when he has succeeded in the proceedings and the request of

Government of India, has been rejected.

60. Therefore, the requirement under Section 2(1)(f) is not made out and

on this ground alone, the Application is ought to be dismissed.

61. The next ground of challenge of the Impugned Order, is that the

Respondent did not have any reason to believe on the basis of material in its

possession, that the Appellant is a Fugitive Economic Offender. In

Paragraph 8(C) of the Appeal, it is stated that “the proceeds of crime in the

Scheduled Offence, are in excess of Rs.100 Crores, which is confirmed by

the Income Tax Authorities, vide communication dated 09.07.2019‖. There

is not a shred of evidence whatsoever to show that the Scheduled Offence

involves a total value of Rs.100 Crores or more.

62. The Respondent has relied on the communication dated 09.07.2019 of

the Income-Tax Department, to state that the scheduled offence is in excess

of Rs.100 Crores. Notably, in this communication itself, the assessment

against the Appellant under the Black Money Act, has not been finalised. In

any kind of tax, the quantum of tax evaded can be determined only after the

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 20 of 46

assessment is completed. Before the assessment is complete, any guess

about the tax evaded, can only be a guess and nothing more

63. In the absence of any conclusive assessment against the Appellant,

there is no determination of the tax allegedly evaded and therefore, there is

no basis to state that the alleged offence under Section 51, is in excess of

Rs.100 Crores. It is evident from the Complaint that the only material with

the Complainant was a Letter dated 09.07.2019 of the Income Tax

Department, which contained only a bald assertion of the alleged value of

the offence being more than Rs.100 Crores, even though the assessment had

not yet been completed.

64. The Income Tax Department filed a chart before this Court showing

the alleged value of foreign assets owned by the Appellant, to be around

Rs.220.91 Crores. As per this asset valuation, the alleged tax evaded under

Section 51 of the Black Money Act at 30%, would be Rs.66 Crores, which is

significantly short of the threshold requirement of the value of the offence

being Rs.100 Crores.

65. The Respondent before the learned Trial Court during the

arguments on 03.05.2025, filed a chart showing the value of the assets in

question to be Rs.191.97 Crores and 30% of the same would be around

Rs.57.6 Crores, which is also below the threshold of Rs.100 Crores. There is

no credible material to prove that the scheduled offence was of a value of

Rs.100 Crores or more, which is the pre-requisite for declaring a person a

Fugitive Economic Offender.

66. This requirement of total value of Rs.100 Crores or more, is a

jurisdictional fact and has to be mandatorily met, failing which the

Respondent cannot sustain its proceedings under FEO Act.

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 21 of 46

67. Further, the basis of any Application under Section 4, must be of

Director or Deputy Director, and on the basis of “reasons to believe” to be

recorded in writing; on the basis of material in his possession. The

Application filed by the Respondent, before the learned Trial Court, merely

makes a bald averment in Paragraph 3 that ―the accused is covered under

the definition of Fugitive Economic Offender as defined under Section 2(f) of

the Act. The amount involved in the Scheduled Offence, is more than Rs.100

crores.‖

68. Aside from this Letter filed along with the Prosecution Complaint,

there is no document whatsoever to disclose the monetary value of the

alleged Scheduled Offence under Section 51 of the Black Money Act. The

Impugned Judgment also fails to consider that a mere Letter from the

Income-Tax Department to the Directorate of Enforcement, cannot form the

basis for reasons to believe that the Appellant has committed a Scheduled

Offence involving a total value of Rs.100 Crores or more.

69. The deficiency in the „reasons to believe‘ cannot be supplemented by

additional reasoning or material in a counter/rejoinder affidavit, as has been

sought to be done in the present case.

70. The “reasons to believe‖ must have a direct nexus and a live link with

the formation of an opinion by the Respondent, to initiate the proceeding

against the Appellant. The Respondent has referred to the Appellant‟s

alleged foreign assets, but no monetary valuation has been given of the said

properties. It is only in the Rejoinder Affidavit filed before this Court,

that for the first time, the Respondent has given the monetary valuation of

the foreign assets of the Appellant and that too, without any material or

documents to support the same.

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 22 of 46

71. Further, the alleged offence under Section 51 of the Black Money

Act, is also the scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, being investigated by the Respondent against the Appellant

herein. In the PMLA proceedings, the ED had issued a Provisional

Attachment Order No.03/2017 dated 01.06.2017 wherein the Appellant‟s

alleged foreign assets, have been valued at around Rs.153 Crores. The

Respondent has nowhere, asserted that the Appellant has created any new

foreign assets, after 01.06.2017. It is evident that varying and arbitrary

valuations are being given to the purported foreign assets of the Appellant.

72. The Appellant had filed SLP (Crl.) No. 18348/2024 against the

Judgment dated 08.11.2024 of this Court dismissing the quashing Petition

for the criminal proceedings under Section 51 of the Black Money Act. The

SLP was disposed of by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India vide the final

Order dated 21.01.2025 wherein direction was given to the Appellant, to

raise all the contentions, legal and factual, before the concerned authority, to

be decided without being influenced by the Impugned Order. The Apex

Court had condoned the delay in filing of the statutory Appeal under the

Black Money Act against the Assessment Order. Consequently, the

Appellant had filed an Appeal under Section 15 of the Black Money Act on

30.01.2025, challenging the Assessment Order dated 23.03.2020, which is

pending adjudication, before the Commissioner (Appeals).

73. The bare perusal of the varying valuations given in different

proceedings, in itself shows the fallacy in the Respondent‟s case. This aspect

has been admitted in Paragraph Nos. 46 and 47 of the Impugned Judgment,

wherein it is held that the valuation of the scheduled offence has changed

many times in the course of the present proceedings.

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 23 of 46

74. It is submitted that the Impugned Judgment has wrongly held that the

NBWs dated 31.10.2019 for the proceedings under Section 51 of the Black

Money Act, continues to survive. Once a person is arrested pursuant to a

Warrant, it stands executed and ceases to exist.

75. It has been wrongly held in the Impugned Judgment that the Non-

Bailable Warrants dated 31.10.2019 was not issued for the purposes of the

extradition proceedings, even though the said warrant was a mandatory

requirement for initiating the Extradition proceedings and the Appellant was

even arrested in London, based on the Warrant.

76. The Appellant Sanjay Bhandari has contended that there is no valid

subsisting NBW which was the prerequisite for initiating any proceeding

under FEO Act. There was one NBW issued by the learned ACMM, but

they got executed on the basis of which the extradition proceedings were

initiated in UK. Consequent to such NBW, he was arrested in extradition

proceedings in UK but was admitted to bail. The Extradition Petition has

been denied. Therefore, the warrants issued against the Appellant got

exhausted and there was no subsisting NBWs, which are subsisting against

the Appellant, and therefore, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside.

77. Sections 2(1)(f) read with Section 2(1)(m) of the FEO Act provide

that the necessary ingredients for making that have to be proved for

declaring an individual as a Fugitive Economic Offender are as follows:

a. There must be a warrant of arrest against a person in a

Schedule Offence; [S. 2(1)(f), FEO Act]; AND

b. The said person must have left India to avoid criminal

prosecution or being abroad, refuses to return to India to

face criminal prosecution; [S. 2(1)(f), FEO Act]; AND

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 24 of 46

c. The value involved in the Schedule Offence is Rs. 100

Crores or more [S. 2(1)(m), FEO Act].

78. In the present case, scheduled offence is under Section 51 of the

Black Money Act, which deals with wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty or

interest. It is not denied that NBW had been issued by the learned ACMM in

the complaint filed under Black Money Act, which never got executed as the

Appellant had gone to UK and they remain subsistence.

79. In fact, these non-bailable warrants were challenged in Criminal

Revision Petition No. 444/2019, which got dismissed vide Order dated

23.10.2019.

80. Notably, the ED‟s Counter-Affidavit mentions one of the properties

alleged to be owned by the Appellant, as Property No. 2414, Floor No. 24,

Building No. 1, A1 Noujoum Tower, Burj Khalifa, UAE. On enquiry, it has

been found that the said property is owned by one Sanjay Bhandari having

Passport No. Z2042109, who was born in Kolkata and has no link with the

Appellant herein. Further, the exchange rate for Dirham to Rupee, has been

wrongly taken as 78.06 for calculating the value of the Bank Account

mentioned in the Rejoinder Affidavit of the Respondent, as the correct

exchange rate is 18.06.

81. The Black Money Act cannot be given a retrospective effect, as it is

both a criminal and taxation statute. The Respondent has admitted in its

allegations that one of the alleged properties being Property No. 12, Ellerton

House, Bryanston Square, London, was allegedly bought in 2009 and

thereafter, sold in June, 2010, by the Appellant.

82. Therefore, as per the Respondent‟s own claims, the alleged property

cannot come within the purview of the Black Money Act, as the Appellant

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 25 of 46

was not an owner of this alleged property from 2010 onwards and the Black

Money Act, which came into force on 01.07.2025, cannot be made

applicable. The other properties and bank accounts, are similarly placed.

83. It is further contended that the declaration of the Appellant as a

Fugitive Economic Offender, entails grave consequences including

confiscation of this property and barring him from defending any civil claim

as provided under Section 14 of the FEO Act, effectively amounting to a

civil death. Such a declaration must strictly comply with the requirements of

Section 4, in the absence of which, any Notice under Section 10 of the FEO,

is bad in law as the Application is not ‗duly filed‘.

84. It is, therefore, submitted that the Impugned Judgment dated

05.07.2025, be set-aside.

85. The Appellant has filed Written Submissions, which are on the same

lines as the Petition.

86. Written Submissions have been filed on behalf of the Directorate

of Enforcement wherein it is submitted that the FEO Act was enacted to

address the specific mischief, namely, the growing trend of economic

offenders committing large-scale financial frauds and fleeing the country, to

evade prosecution. The FEO is intended to ensure that such offenders are

deprived of the benefits of their crimes and are compelled to submit the

jurisdiction of Indian Courts. The Court must be guided by the Mischief Rule

of interpretation, as laid down in Heydon‘s Case (1584). This Rule requires

the Court to identify the mischief the statute intends to suppress and to adopt

an interpretation that advances the legislative remedy.

87. Where two interpretations are possible, the one that furthers the

objective of the law and suppress the mischief, must prevail. Any

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 26 of 46

interpretation that frustrates the purpose of the FEOA or permits offenders to

escape accountability, must be rejected. The FEO Act is not a law that

punishes a person for a scheduled offence; it is not punitive law in that

sense. Its object is to bring back individuals to face trial/prosecution in

India.

88. If a person appears in response to a Notice under Section 10(1) of the

Act, the proceeding under the FEOA, are immediately terminated. This alone

demonstrates that the Act is not meant to punish, but to ensure that the

person returns and facts the judicial process in India. Only when a person

refuses to appear, does the process of declaration as a Fugitive Economic

Offender and consequential confiscation, begins.

89. The present law is not punitive or retributive; rather corrective and

preventive. From the conjoint reading of Section 2(f) of the Act, which

defines „fugitive economic offender‟ and S. 2(m) which defines „Scheduled

Offence‟, it is evident that the Act is applicable to those individuals, who are

accused of having committed an offence specified in the schedule,

amounting to one hundred crore rupees or more and can be invoked only qua

an individual against whom a warrant of arrest in relation to a scheduled

offence, has been issued by any Court in India, and who-(i) has left India to

avoid criminal prosecution; or (ii) being abroad, refuses to return to India to

face criminal prosecution.

90. Section 12(1) of the FEO Act, lays down the two-step process if the

Court is satisfied that:

―A warrant for arrest in relation to a scheduled offence

has been issued and either the individual has left India or

is refusing to return.‖

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 27 of 46

91. The facts of the case are detailed and thereafter, it is explained that the

Warrant of Arrest, had been issued against the Accused, on 31.10.2019 in

CC No. 2121/2019, on the reasonable belief that the Accused is deliberately

evaded the process of law.

92. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the

warrants got exhausted is not tenable for the simple reason that the warrants

issued in the Extradition Act were pertaining to the proceedings under the

said Act. The arrest of the Appellant under the extradition proceedings, was

pursuant to the warrants issued thereunder. In fact, the NBWs dated

31.10.2019 issued by learned ACMM are still subsisting and have not been

exhausted. As per Section 17(2) Cr.P.C., every warrant of arrest remains

enforced until it is cancelled by the Court, which issued it or until it is

executed. Neither has the NBW been executed for admittedly, the Appellant

has not been arrested to face the trial under the Black Money Act not have

they been recalled. It is in fact an open ended NBW which is very much live.

93. The contention of the Appellant that there is no live NBW, which is

required as per Sections 2(1)(f) read with Section 2(1)(m) of the FEO Act, is

therefore, misplaced. The learned Special Judge, CBI, has therefore, rightly

rejected this contention.

94. It is further asserted that the total value of the scheduled offence is

more than Rs.100 Crores. The Communication dated 09.07.2019 from the

Income Tax Department, confirms that the value of undisclosed foreign

assets exceeds Rs.100 Crore. The undisclosed foreign income and assets

mentioned in the Income-Tax prosecution Complaint, is the same income

and assets, which ultimately gets quantified in the final Assessment Order,

which is also on record and the final tax liability is computed at

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 28 of 46

Rs.196,68,64,700/-. There is no cavil in the Respondent‟s argument that the

monetary threshold for the scheduled offence under this Act, is not fulfilled.

95. It is further stated that the argument that without quantification or

assessment, there can be no prosecution is completely flawed, in terms of

Section 48(2) of the Act. Section 48(2) of BMA, provides that the provisions

for offences and prosecutions provided under Chapter V of the BMA, are

not in derogation of any other law or any other provision of BMA. Hence, it

means that even if the Assessment Order has not been made under the BMA,

prosecution can still be initiated and it would not be a valid defence to assert

that the assessment has not been completed, or was barred by limitation, or

stayed due to some other reason.

96. Section 10 (3) BMA, provides that the Assessing Officer may, after

considering all materials and giving the assessee an opportunity to respond,

pass an order in writing, assessing or reassessing undisclosed foreign income

or assets. Even if this Order under Section 10(3) is not passed, Section 48(2)

makes it clear that prosecution can still be maintained. Therefore, the lack of

quantification or absence of an Assessment Order, is no bar to initiating

proceedings, including those under the FEO Act.

97. The language of Section 51 of the BMA, which provides punishment

for wilful attempt to evade tax, is explicit; even an attempt to evade tax and

not just the actual evasion, is punishable. The statute itself addresses the

wilful attempts to evade taxes, which is significant in the present case.

98. Reliance is placed on Jayappan vs. S.K. Perumal, (1984) SC 1693;

Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 and Sasi

Enterprises vs. ACIT, (2014) 5 SCC 139. Reliance is also placed on Koppula

Venkat Rao vs. State of A.P., (2004) 3 SCC 602 to assert that even an

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 29 of 46

„attempt‟ to wilfully evade tax is an offence under section 51 of the BMA.

Reliance is also placed on Chaitu Lal vs. State of Uttrakhand, (2019) 20

SCC 272.

99. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is submitted that even though the

evasion of tax, may not have been completed, the wilful attempt to evade tax

under Section 51 of the BMA, is sufficient to constitute an offence. Reliance

is placed on Radhika Agarwal vs. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 449

wherein Apex Court rejected the contention that the power of arrest under

Section 132(5) of the GST, cannot be exercised unless proceedings under

Section 73 are concluded and as Assessment Order quantifying the alleged

tax evasion, is passed.

100. The expression „reason to believe‘ in Section 4 of the FEO Act, also

means ‗prima facie‘ belief and does not imply that such satisfaction has to

be conclusively proved. Reliance is placed on CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock

Brokers (P) Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC 208. The Courts have consistently held that

„reason to believe‟ refers to a cause or justification based on tangible

material; it does not require conclusive proof. Section 4 of the FEOA, uses

the phrase „reason to believe‘ making it evident that the competent authority

need not await a final assessment or adjudication. The belief may be

founded on the information, evidence, or material already in possession.

101. A finalised Assessment Order is not a precondition for initiating

proceedings under the FEOA. Reliance is placed on Rajendra Singh Verma

vs. Lt. Governor, (2011) 10 SCC 1.

102. Furthermore, Section 54 of the BMA provides that in any prosecution

requiring proof of a culpable mental state, the Court shall presume its

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 30 of 46

existence and the burden lies on the accused to prove the contrary beyond

reasonable doubt.

103. Reliance is placed on Satyendar Kumar Jain vs. Enforcement

Directorate, (2023) 5 HCC (Del) 461 wherein it has been held that the

Court, while deciding the case under the PMLA, cannot adjudicate upon or

doubt the veracity of the scheduled/predicate offence, once cognizance

thereof has been taken by the competent court. Thus, reducing the asset

value to 30% to compute tax, is misplaced. Section 2(1)(m) refers to the

total value of the offence and not merely the tax payable. Section 41 allows a

penalty of up to three times the tax amount, which is imposable as required

under Section 51 of the Black Money Act.

104. It is further asserted that Section 51 of the Black Money Act is not

dependent upon assessment of the tax liability; rather it depends upon the

existence of the tax liability. Reliance is placed on CIT vs. Jagan Nath

Maheshwary, (1957) 32 ITR 418.

Submissions Heard and Record Perused.

I. Validity and Existence of the Non-Bailable Warrant

105. The challenge to NBWs is two-fold, firstly „whether the requirement

of a pending warrant under Section 2(1)(f) is satisfied if the NBW dated

31.10.2019 was already executed when the Appellant was arrested in

London on 08.07.2021‟; secondly, „whether a warrant ceases to exist for the

purposes of the FEO Act once an arrest has been made and bail granted in a

foreign jurisdiction.‟

106. The existence of the Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) is a jurisdictional

prerequisite under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 (“FEO Act”).

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 31 of 46

107. The Appellant argues that the requirement under Section 2(1)(f) -

which defines a Fugitive Economic Offender as an individual against whom

a “warrant for arrest... has been issued” - is no longer satisfied. The

provision is extracted as under:

―2. Definitions —

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,––

…

(f) ―fugitive economic offender‖ means any individual

against whom a warrant for arrest in relation to a

Scheduled Offence has been issued by any Court in India,

who—

(i) has left India so as to avoid criminal prosecution;

or

(ii) being abroad, refuses to return to India to face

criminal prosecution;‖

108. The Appellant points out that an NBW was issued by the Special

Court on 31.10.2019. However, he was subsequently arrested by the

authorities in London on 08.07.2021, pursuant to that very warrant via the

extradition request.

109. The Appellant posits that once a warrant is executed and the person is

taken into custody (even in a foreign jurisdiction) and subsequently granted

Bail by a foreign court, the warrant ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. He

contends that an “executed” warrant cannot serve as the basis for a

declaration under the FEO Act.

110. The ED, on the other hand, argues that the Appellant‟s interpretation

is pedantic and defeats the purposive object of the Act. The ED asserts that

Section 2(1)(f) only requires that a warrant “has been issued.” It does not

require the warrant to be “pending” in a state of perpetual non-execution.

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 32 of 46

111. The purpose of an NBW is to secure the presence of the accused

before the issuing Court in India. As long as the Appellant remains on

foreign soil and hasn‟t been produced before the Special Court, the

warrant‟s primary objective remains unfulfilled.

112. The ED argues that FEO proceedings are “corrective” and aimed at

compelling the person to return. Arrest in a foreign jurisdiction for

extradition does not equate to “surrender” to the Indian judicial process.

113. To decide this issue, we must look at the interplay between criminal

procedure and the special objectives of the FEO Act.

114. The FEO Act was enacted to address the stalemate in criminal

proceedings caused by the absence of the accused. The NBW serves as the

formal judicial recognition that the person‟s presence is required for trial and

that they have failed to appear through ordinary summons.

115. There is a vital legal distinction between an arrest made by foreign

police (like Scotland Yard) for the purpose of extradition and the execution

of a warrant that culminates in the accused being produced before the Indian

Magistrate.

116. In this case, the Appellant was arrested in the UK, but he successfully

resisted being brought to India. If the Appellant‟s logic were accepted, any

offender who is arrested abroad but manages to secure bail or tie up

extradition in litigation for years would automatically be immune from the

FEO Act. This would create a legal loophole where the more a person resists

returning to India, the less likely they are to be classified as a “fugitive.”

117. Legally, a warrant of arrest remains in force until it is cancelled by the

court which issued it, or until it is fully executed. "Full execution" in the

context of a person abroad involves the actual handover of the person to the

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 33 of 46

Indian judicial system. Since the Appellant remains in the UK and continues

to resist his physical production before the Special Court, the warrant

remains legally “unsatisfied.”

118. The issue is decided against the Appellant as Section 2(1)(f) uses the

phrase “has been issued.” The issuance of the warrant is a historical

jurisdictional fact. The Act does not stipulate that the warrant must be

“unexecuted” or “live” in the sense of the person being a “proclaimed

offender” under the Cr.P.C.

119. The Appellant‟s arrest in London did not result in his appearance

before the Special Court in India. Therefore, the “warrant for arrest” has not

met its legal finality.

120. The very fact that the Appellant is using his Bail and legal status in

the UK to avoid appearing in India, confirms that he is “refusing to return to

India to face criminal prosecution” within the meaning of S. 2(1)(f).

121. If the “Spent Warrant” theory is accepted it would render the FEO Act

toothless against individuals who are wealthy and influential enough to

secure Bail in foreign jurisdictions.

122. Thus, the NBW dated 31.10.2019, remains a valid and existing basis

for the FEO proceedings. The Appellant‟s arrest in the UK and subsequent

release on Bail there does not extinguish the warrant for the purposes of the

FEO Act, as he has not yet been produced before the Court that issued the

warrant.

123. The challenge to the validity of the warrant is hereby rejected

II. Determining the threshold of Rs. 100 crore or more

124. Now the second bone of contention is whether the mandatory

monetary threshold of Rs.100 crores, as prescribed under Section 2(1)(f)

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 34 of 46

read with Section 2(1)(m) FEO Act was lawfully and sufficiently

established to sustain the declaration of the Petitioner as a Fugitive

Economic Offender?

125. At the outset, it is essential to understand what the FEO Act demands

before any person can be declared a Fugitive Economic Offender.

126. Section 2(1)(f) defines a “Fugitive Economic Offender” as a person

against whom a warrant has been issued in relation to a Scheduled Offence

and who has left India, so as to avoid criminal prosecution or is a person

who being abroad, refuses to return to India to face criminal prosecution.

Section 2(1)(m) defines the “Scheduled Offence” as an offence specified in

the Schedule, if the total value involved in such offence or offences is Rs.

100 crores or more. Unless this threshold is crossed, the Court cannot

entertain an Application under Section 4 of the Act, let alone issue notice

under Section 10 or make a declaration under Section 12.

127. In the present case, the Scheduled Offence is under Section 51 of the

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of

Tax Act, 2015, which provides for punishment for wilful attempt to evade

tax. It is reproduced as under:

“51. Punishment for wilful attempt to evade tax.—

(1) If a person, being a resident other than not ordinarily

resident in India within the meaning of clause (6) of Section 6 of

the Income Tax Act, wilfully attempts in any manner whatsoever

to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable

under this Act, he shall be punishable with rigorous

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years

but which may extend to ten years and with fine.

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 35 of 46

(2) If a person wilfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to

evade the payment of any tax, penalty or interest under this Act,

he shall, without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable

on him under any other provision of this Act, be punishable with

rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than

three months but which may extend to three years and shall, in the

discretion of the court, also be liable to fine.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a wilful attempt to evade

any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this

Act or the payment thereof shall include a case where any

person—

(i) has in his possession or control any books of account or

other documents (being books of account or other

documents relevant to any proceeding under this Act)

containing a false entry or statement; or

(ii) makes or causes to be made any false entry or

statement in such books of account or other documents; or

(ii) wilfully omits or causes to be omitted any relevant

entry or statement in such books of account or other

documents; or

(iv) causes any other circumstance to exist which will have

the effect of enabling such person to evade any tax,

penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this Act

or the payment thereof.‖

128. Thus, the foundational requirement is that the accused must be alleged

to have committed a Scheduled Offence as defined under Section 2(1)(m) of

the FEO Act, and the value of that scheduled offence must be Rs.100

crores or more.

129. In the present case, this Scheduled Offence stands on the Income Tax

Authorities‟ Prosecution Complaint under Section 51 of the Black Money

Act.

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 36 of 46

130. From the Assessment Year 2001-02 through 2017-18, the Petitioner

consistently filed Income Tax Returns (―ITR‖) declaring NIL foreign assets

in Schedule FA of the ITR 2012-13. This declaration stood in complete

contradiction to what was discovered during the search and seizure

operation conducted by the Income Tax Authorities on 27.04.2016, when

multiple undisclosed foreign assets were detected, including foreign bank

accounts, a property in London that had allegedly been sold without

disclosure, and interests in offshore entities including the Al-Rahma Trust in

Dubai.

131. Subsequently, the Petitioner’s statements were recorded under

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act on 29/30.04.2016, wherein he was

confronted with the evidence of his foreign assets. A Show Cause Notice

dated 08.03.2018 was issued to him for Prosecution under Section 51 of the

Black Money Act, specifying the foreign bank accounts and properties in

detail alongside the year-wise ITR data from 2001-02 till 2017-18.

132. On 22.12.2018, the Income Tax Department filed Prosecution

Complaint No. CC 2121/2019 before the Ld. ACMM, Tis Hazari Courts,

Delhi under Section 51 of the Black Money Act. However, the said

Complaint did not assign any specific monetary valuation to the foreign

assets.

133. Additionally, a communication vide Letter dated 09.07.2019 by the

Income Tax Authorities, tabulated the undisclosed foreign bank accounts

and properties in Para 2. In this letter, the Income Tax Department stated

that the evasion of tax, penalty and interest as contemplated under Section

51 of the Black Money Act was prima facie more than Rs. 100 crores.

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 37 of 46

However, the assessment under the Black Money Act had not yet been

finalized.

134. The Petitioner argued that a mere letter from the Income Tax

Department, expressly acknowledging that formal assessment was pending,

could not constitute sufficient proof of the threshold of Rs. 100 crore being

met. Thus, the main argument on behalf of the Appellant is that to constitute

an offence under Black Money Act, the assessment of tax has to be more

than Rs.100 crores. However, in the present case, the assessments have been

made in different amounts, and therefore, the complaint under Section 51

Black Money Act was not maintainable. Consequently, the proceedings

under FEO Act, are not maintainable.

135. In order to appreciate this contention, it is significant to refer to

Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act. The learned District Judge has

in detail, considered the distinction between the two Sections. Section 50

Black Money Act provides that if a person who has furnished the return of

income tax, does not furnish any information relating to an asset (including

financial interest in any entity) located outside India, then he can be

prosecuted under Section 50 of the Money Black Money Act. It is a mere

omission to disclose the income in the income tax returns, the foreign asset

or income, which is punishable with a term which may extend up to 07 years

and with fine. On the other hand, Section 51 deals with willful attempt to

evade any tax, penalty or interest which is punishable with a sentence up to

10 years.

136. It is clearly demonstrable from the two Sections, that the scope of the

offence under these two sections, is essentially different. Under Section 51

mens rea is an important ingredient. It has to be demonstrated that though

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 38 of 46

the assessee was having the capacity to pay the tax, penalty or interest, he

evaded the payment of tax by dishonesty, disabling himself from paying

such tax or fraudulently dealt with his assets or property with the intention to

evade the payment of tax, penalty or interest. It would be a case where

assessee practices a sort of deception by manipulating the books of account

or other documents, either by making false entries or by making or omitting

to make entries or such other act. The mens rea required under Section 51

is an intentional act on part of the assessee in willful evasion of tax and

not mere failure to pay the tax.

137. Section 48 of the Black Money Act provides that the assessment and

the prosecution proceedings, can both proceed simultaneously and it is not

necessary that before launching of the prosecution under Section 51 Black

Money Act, the assessment must be completed under Section 10 Black

Money Act.

138. Therefore, when both can continue simultaneously, the concerned

authorities have two options; either to wait for the assessment to be

completed for instituting the prosecution under Section 51 Black Money Act

or straight away file the Complaint for prosecution under Section 51 Black

Money Act in appropriate cases, where the evasion is huge or the person is

absconding and is not submitting himself to the jurisdiction of Indian court

or is acting in a manner prejudicial to the national interest. In all these

cases, because the assessment is taking time, the prosecuting agency may go

for prosecution or else, it may defeat the very purpose of Black Money Act.

139. In this context, it is also pertinent to observe that the main objective of

Fugitive Offenders Act is to deter economic offenders from evading the

process of Indian law by remaining outside the jurisdiction of Indian Court.

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 39 of 46

The purpose of this Act is to make the fugitive offenders return to India, to

face the action in accordance with law. It is not intended for any

punishment, but only to compel the fugitive to abide by the law of the land.

140. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently contended that

in the Complaint under Section 51 Black Money Act, the amount involved

for the scheduled offence, is claimed to be more than Rs.100 crores.

However, to claim that there was such evasion of tax, reliance is placed

merely on a Communication dated 09.07.2019 from the Income Tax

Department to state that the alleged scheduled offence is more than of

Rs.100 crores. This communication itself stated that assessment, is yet to be

finalized. Therefore, in any kind of tax assessment, quantum of tax evasion

can be determined only after the assessment is done and prior to that, it is

only a presumption or a guess and nothing more.

141. It is further asserted that in paragraph 8C of the complaint, it was

stated that the proceeds of crime in the scheduled offence are in excess of

Rs.100 crores and has been confirmed by the Income Tax Authority vide

Confirmation dated 09.07.2019 which is annexed along with the

complaint.The Ld. Special court, however, examined this letter holistically

and held that, the letter read as a whole clearly communicated the Income

Tax Department‟s prima facie view that the evasion exceeded Rs. 100

crores.

142. The ED filed an Application under Section 4 read with Sections 10

and 12 of the FEO Act, on 13.12.2019, before the Ld. Special Court. In the

Statement of Reasons to Believe appended to this Application, the ED did

not rely solely on the IT Department‟s letter of 09.07.2019. The material

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 40 of 46

supporting the Rs.100 crore threshold was, in fact, a composite of several

independent strands of evidence:

a. First, the Prosecution Complaint itself, which tabulated

the undisclosed foreign bank accounts and properties.

The same was confirmed by said Letter of 09.07.2019.

b. Second, Annexure A-2 to the FEO Application, which

listed foreign properties including the London property

allegedly sold without disclosure, along with foreign

bank accounts.

c. Third, Annexure A-3, which catalogued properties in

India held in Petitioner‟s name, properties held through

companies under his substantial control, properties held

through shell companies at his behest, and properties

held through benami holders.

d. Fourth, the statement of his Chartered Accountant,

Sandeep Kapoor recorded on 08.02.2017 under Section

132(4) of the Income Tax Act, wherein he elaborated on

the backdating of the Al-Rahma Trust structure, which

was done after receipt of the Black Money Act notice

dated 22.09.2016.

e. Fifth, the Petitioner‟s own statements recorded on

29/30.04.2016.

143. The Rs.100 crore figure stated in the IT Department‟s letter was not

the sole basis for the ED‟s reasons to believe, but rather just one component

of the investigation, which is still in progress. Thus, at the time of filing the

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 41 of 46

Application, sufficient material was in possession of the Respondent, upon

which any reasonable person could form a prima facie belief that the value

of the scheduled offence exceeded Rs.100 crores.

144. However, it is pertinent to acknowledge that the Petitioner pointed out

that the valuation of the Scheduled Offence had been in a constant state of

flux throughout the proceedings, and that the evaluation of the tax evasion at

different stages, had been given differently as is evident from hereunder:

―a. On 27th February 2020, the Income Tax

Department had filed a tabular chart vide Diary

No.313531 in Crl. MC No. 805/2020 wherein the value

of the Accused's alleged foreign assets was Rs. 220.91

crores. The tax on the same at 30% would be around

Rs. 66 crores.

b. On 23rd March 2020, the Income Tax Department

passed the assessment order against the accused under

the Black Money Act wherein the value of the

Accused's alleged foreign assets was Rs. 655 crores.

The tax on the same at 30% would be around Rs. 196

сrores.

c. On 15th July 2020, the ED filed its Rejoinder

Affidavit in the present proceedings where in Para 8

(Pages 9-10) it has given the value of the Accused's

alleged foreign assets as Rs. 487.13 crores. The tax on

the same at 30% would be around Rs. 146 crores.

d. In the course of the hearing before the Hon'ble

Court, the ED produced a chart showing the value of

the Accused's alleged foreign assets as Rs. 191 crores.

The tax on the same at 30% would be around Rs. 57.3

crores.‖

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 42 of 46

145. Though, there have been different assessments given at different times

in different proceedings, the learned District Judge rightly observed that

these changed valuations merely reflected the tentative nature of the figures

in the mind of Income Tax Authority qua the total value of scheduled

offence being more than Rs.100 crores, it kept on twisting and turning in a

constant state of flux.

146. Learned Special Judge had rightly observed that Section 51 of the

Black Money Act deals with the aggregate value of total tax evaded or

attempted to be evaded including penalty and interest which has to be

calculated from the total undisclosed foreign assets and income concealed

by such person. The value can only be determined on total undisclosed

income and assets and therefore, an attempted evasion would be the sum

total of evaded tax or sought to be evaded. Therefore, it cannot said to be the

total asset value of undisclosed foreign income and assets of an individual

which he has concealed from the revenue authority but also takes into

account the tax sought to be evaded on the said undisclosed foreign amount

since Section 51 Black Money Act even covers an attempt to willfully evade

taxes then even though the evasion of tax has not been completed, even a

willful attempt to evade, would be sufficient to constitute an offence under

Section 51 Black Money Act.

147. Therefore, even if there were tentative figures being calculated for tax

evasion, the schedule of the properties and the assets of the Appellant was

the same and there was nothing or deleted. The assessment may have varied

but the assets remain the same on which the final assessment was done in

2019/2020.

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 43 of 46

148. It may thus, be concluded that at the time when the Application under

Section 4 read with section 10 and 12 Fugitive Offenders Act was filed,

there was sufficient material available with the director concerned to form a

prima facie view that the total value of scheduled offense was Rs.100 crores

or more which attracted Section 51 of Black Money Act. The tentative

figures though kept on varying, but were finally determined in the final

assessment done under Section 104 Black Money Act on 23.03.2020,

wherein the total undisclosed foreign income and assets were assessed at

Rs.655 crores approximately and the tax evasion was approximately

assessed as Rs.196 crores amongst which met the threshold for the offense

under the Section 51 Black Money Act. This final assessment was annexed

along with the Rejoinder Affidavit by the Respondent.

149. In this context, it is also pertinent to refer to the final Assessment

Order dated 23.03.2020 which established that the value of the scheduled

offence was far in excess of Rs.100 crores. This Order validated and

fortified the prima facie belief that the Respondent already held at the time

of filing. This Order assessed the total undisclosed foreign income and

assets at Rs.655,62,15,670/- i.e. approximately Rs. 655 crores; imposed tax

thereon @ 30% under Section 3 of the Black Money Act, quantifying the tax

liability at Rs. 196,68,64,700 i.e. approximately Rs.196 crores. To this must

be added the penalty and interest imposable under the Act, which would

only enhance the figure. The aggregate of tax, penalty and interest, therefore

crossed the statutory threshold of Rs.100 crores.

150. The fact that the figures were variable during the course of

proceedings does not detract from this conclusion that the law here does not

demand that an arithmetic consistency be maintained at every stage; it

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 44 of 46

merely requires that the final authoritative determination cross the threshold

of Rs. 100 crores. And that determination of a figure of Rs.196 crores in tax

alone, is done as per this standard.

151. Moreover, what the accused‟s remedy against this Assessment Order

may be is a separate, the question that does not fall for determination in

these proceedings. For the purposes of declaration of FEO, the Order stands

and places the threshold beyond dispute.

152. In light of the discussion above, the Rs.100 crore threshold is

established through an evolutionary process. The Ld. Special court correctly

held that the threshold was met, both at the prima facie stage when the

Application was filed, and at the stage of final adjudication (Order dated

05.07.2025 wherein Assessment Order dated 23.03.2020 was also referred)

thereby, conclusively establishing the foundation of the declaration of

accused as a Fugitive Economic Offender.

153. An objection was taken that there was a mention of the property

situated at London, UK which had allegedly been sold. However, the

allegation of the Respondent/prosecuting agency was that this property

never got disclosed to the Income Tax Authorities, which also became a

basis for calculating the undisclosed assets of the Appellant. He apparently

owned properties in India and Companies, in which shell Companies were

shareholders on behalf of the Appellant. There were benami properties held

by him and other umpteen number of foreign assets and bank accounts

which were rightly considered by ED to form a prima facie view of

initiating proceedings under Section 4 Black Money Act. Therefore, the

learned Special Judge was right in observing that the requirement of

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 45 of 46

evasion of tax being more than Rs.100 crores was amply satisfied in the

present case.

154. The Petitioner further contended that the FEO proceedings, carry

drastic civil consequences including confiscation of property and the bar on

defending civil claims under Section 14 and an “economic death penalty”

which requires a high standard of certainty in establishing this threshold.

155. The Ld. Special Court applied the standard of ―reasons to believe”

rather than conclusive proof, as per Section 4(1) FEO Act. The same cannot

be said to be incorrect. The authority filing the Application (in the present

case, ED) is not required to conduct a final adjudication or assessment at the

threshold stage. What is required is that the belief must be rational, based on

tangible material, and bear a direct nexus to the evidence.

156. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. vs. CIT, 2015 SCC OnLine Del

12010 it was held as under:

“12. The assumption that the assessee had not credited the

profits in question to the profit and loss account is also,

admittedly, factually incorrect. Thus, the reasons which led the

Assessing Officer to form a belief that income of the assessee had

escaped assessment are admittedly based on palpably incorrect

assumptions. It is well established that reasons to believe that

income had escaped assessment is a necessary pre-condition for

the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction. Clearly, it would be

difficult to sustain that this pre-condition is met if such reasons to

believe that income of an assessee has escaped assessment are

based on palpably erroneous assumptions. The reason to believe

must be predicated on tangible material or information. A

reason to suspect cannot be a reason to believe; the belief must

CRL.A. 1071/2025 Page 46 of 46

be rational and bear a direct nexus to the material on which

such a belief is based. In the present case, the very assumption on

the basis of which the Assessing Officer is stated to have formed

his belief that the assessee‘s income had escaped assessment has

been found to be erroneous. There was no basis for the Assessing

Officer to assume that the assessee had not credited the profits

from the sale of investments, which are alleged to have escaped

assessment in its profit and loss account.‖

157. Applying the same to the facts of the present case, the Ld. Special

Court held that at the time of filing on 13.12.2019, the Respondent had

sufficient material (the IT letter, the Prosecution Complaint, the Annexures

listing foreign and domestic properties, the CA‟s statement regarding

backdating, and Petitioner‟s own statements) to prima facie believe that the

value of the Scheduled Offence exceeded Rs.100 crores.

Conclusion:

158. In light of aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that there is no

merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby dismissed.

159. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of along with pending

Application(s), if any.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

APRIL 09, 2026/RS