2018 (10) TMI 330 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Offence under PMLA - provisional attachment orders - Held that:- In view of the fact that the complex facts and circumstances raised in these writ petitions, cannot be adjudicated by this Court at this stage, since the writ petitioners have challenged the very show cause notice and the attachment order passed. The writ petitioners are bound to submit their statements, documents to the respondents to establish their innocence at the first instance, so as to avoid further proceedings under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Equally, the respondents are also bound to follow the procedures contemplated under the Act, by providing a reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioners to submit their defence and establish their case before the Competent Authorities.

The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners with reference to the merits of the case deserves no consideration in view of the fact that this Court has considered the ground of maintainability of the writ petitions with reference to the PMLA Act and with reference to the stage in which the present writ petitions are filed. Thus, all those judgments referred by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners have no relevance with reference to the grounds considered in the present writ petitions.

This Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the present writ petitions are not only premature and the complex facts and circumstances now raised by the writ petitioners, cannot be adjudicated in view of the fact that the writ petitioners have not exhausted the appeal remedies provided under the Statutes and not participated in the administrative procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, establishing their innocence or otherwise before the Competent Authorities. Such administrative procedures contemplated cannot be construed as akin to that of the criminal proceedings initiated under the Indian Penal Code.

Writ petitioners, being failed to establish any legally acceptable ground, so as to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondents under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Thus, both the writ petitions stand dismissed.