Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 815 - AT - Money LaunderingOffence under PMLA - attachment orders - denial of natural justice - immovable property of a person has been made part of a prosecution complaint for confiscation without making that person as a party and affording that person an opportunity to defend his case - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the written submission of the respondent as well as oral submissions made by the respondent that ED has filed Prosecution Complaint only against Shri Bimal Ramgopal Agarwal, not against the present appellant but the property of present appellant has been made part and parcel of the said prosecution complaint. It is strange to note here that an immovable property of a person has been made part of a prosecution complaint for confiscation without making that person as a party and affording that person an opportunity to defend his case. Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA has been amended by the Act 13 of 2018, wherein a limitation period has been provided for continuation of attachment or retention of property or record post confirmation of attachment/retention. It is the intention of the legislature not to allow the Investigating Authority to get the property attached or retained the record/documents/items indefinitely in the name of investigation. It has been admitted, during the course of oral submissions, by the learned counsel for the respondent that no Prosecution Complaint is pending against Shri Sanjay Kumar, the present appellant till 12.04.2019 when the appeal was finally argued. The submissions made by the parties are considered. The relevant provisions of law are also considered along with the factual and legal issues raised by the parties. The impugned order was passed on 24.07.2018 and no Prosecution Compliant is pending against the appellant even though more than 250 days from the date of impugned order have already been passed. Since, we have decided the appeal in the light of amendment brought in the statute as mentioned above hence, we have not gone into other legal issues raised herein. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appellant may move the concerned Special Court for appropriate remedy, wherein the Prosecution Complaint is pending and his property has been made part and parcel of that complaint, in accordance with law.
|