Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 362 - HC - Money LaunderingProvisional attachment of the property - orders confirming the attachment of properties of the respondents lapsed due to the operation of the provisions of the PMLA Act - applicability of time limitation as per period specified under Section 8 (3) of the PMLA Act - scheduled offences or not - HELD THAT:- It is evident from the operation of Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA Act that under Section 8(3), as it stood at the relevant time, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the attachment of the properties would remain in operation during the period of investigation, not exceeding 90 days. It is admitted position that in the present case, not even the complaint contemplated under Section 44 of the PMLA Act was instituted by the concerned Authority within the period of 90 days and eventually it came to be filed on 03/05/2019. Merely because the Delhi High Court had passed the above quoted interim order in Writ Petition filed by Mr. Vinod Phadke, the respondent in Appeal bearing No. 2509 of 2019, it would not ipso facto mean that the period specified under Section 8 (3) of the PMLA Act stood extended. Nothing prevented the concerned Authority from filing the complaint and investigating into the matter. It is also worth noting that a subsequent amendment was brought into the PMLA Act in the year 2019, whereby explanation was added to Section 8 (3) of the said Act. This further assists this Court in appreciating the contentions raised by the rival parties. The explanation appended to Section 8(3) by way of amendment of 2019 specifically states that for the purposes of computing the period relevant to Section 8(3) of the PMLA Act, the period during which investigation is stayed by any Court shall be excluded. Although the said explanation is not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case since the amendment came in the year 2019, it does show that even post amendment the period specified under Section 8 (3) would stand extended only if there is stay to the investigation by any Court. In the present case, a perusal of the above quoted interim order of the Delhi High Court would show that there was, in fact, no stay of the investigation. This is another reason why the contention raised on behalf of the appellant – Directorate of Enforcement cannot be accepted. The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
|