Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2015 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 1078 - HC - Money LaunderingDe-freeze of bank account allegedly been done under the provisions of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - whether this Court is to scrutinize the source of the funds and whether the action of the authorities is justified? Held that:- We are well aware that the power of freezing is a draconian power and safe guards have to be kept in mind to check its abuse and limit its exercise. However, a balance has to be maintained between the right of the citizen and the right of the investigating agency which cannot be restricted as it is the duty of the said agency to unearth and find out the modus operandi resorted to by the noticees and the beneficiaries of the proceeds of the crime. This exercise is thus to be adjudicated upon by the adjudicating authority before whom the complaint has thus to be filed expeditiously within a period of 30 days of the freezing under Section 17(4) of the PMLA and which has been done in the present case. It is trite law that the right of investigation cannot as such be trampled upon by this Court and the purpose of freezing cannot be ignored regarding the interest of the revenue also so that the proceeds of crime are not frittered away. The parties have to be given a reasonable level playing field. This cannot be achieved by permitting oral applications thus depriving the respondents an opportunity of meeting the petitioner's case in a reasonable manner. Admittedly, under 17(4) of the PMLA, an application has been filed on 11.02.2015 (Annexure R-11) for retention of the records and the property seized by the Deputy Director in which details have been given of 108 bank accounts and various immovable properties owned in Himachal Pardesh owned by Shri Mukesh Mittal and his associates. The said adjudicating authority has issued notice dated 23.02.2015 (Annexure R-12 colly) to the petitioner as to why the said documents seized or frozen should not be retained as involved in money laundering and required for the purpose of investigation. A similar notice had also been issued to the husband of the petitioner to put in appearance apart from 43 other defendants. Normally and in the first instance, it is for the adjudicating authority to decide whether the order of freezing is to continue or not under Section 8(3) and in such circumstances, it would not be within the ambit of this Court to get into the disputed questions as to where the money lying in the fixed deposits bank accounts has come from. Keeping in view the settled principle that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we do not intend going into the questions of fact which in all probability are disputed. The argument raised that the money lying in the accounts are from justified sources of income thus cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage. However, it is made clear that anything said herein is only for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition and will not affect the petitioner's case before the authorities or in any other proceedings.
|