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 1461 - AT - Money LaunderingOffence under PMLA - Retention of property - application filed by the Enforcement Directorate - Respondent and allowing the Respondent to retain the documents/digital devices till finalization of the case - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the reading of Sections 17 to 21 that outer limit upto the date for deciding the application for retention of property within the meaning of sub-section 4 of Section 21 is 180 days from the date of seizure of any property or records. The said period is not extendable. The person concerned/aggrieved party of such order, is entitled to file the appeal under Section 26 of the Act. The same shall be heard and after giving an opportunity of being heard, the appellant Tribunal shall pass the order either to confirm the order of retention or to modify or setting aside the same. Where the Adjudicating Authority decides by an order confirm the retention under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 or Section 18 for the purpose of continuation during investigation for a period not exceeding ninety days under this Act before the Competent Court, or under the corresponding law of any other countries as the case may be under Sub-section (3) (a) of Section 8 may take necessary action within the time prescribed. In failure to do so under this Act, all the proceedings, seizures/frozen under Section 17 would be lapsed ipso facto. If a particular thing is to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner only and none other. Reliance in this regard is also placed on a judgements in the cases of Dipak Babaria and another vs. State of Gujarat [2015 (8) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] and J. Jayalalitha & Anr vs State of Karnataka & Ors [2013 (9) TMI 1182 - SUPREME COURT] The provisions of section 8 (3) (a) provides that the attachment or retention of property or record seized shall continue during the investigation for a period not exceeding ninety days. No prosecution complaint has been filed against the appellant herein. The properties and records of the appellant were seized only for the purpose of investigation. The period of 90 days as prescribed under section 8 (3) (a) has already expired. No prosecution complaint has been filed by the respondent against the appellant. The said fact has been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. Appeal is liable to be allowed in view of the mandatory provision as the retention order lapses. The properties retained by the respondent shall be returned to the appellant within next two weeks from today. In the interest of justice, equity and fair play, the respondent is allowed to retain the photocopies of records seized/print of the electronic items and copy of hard disks, if so required, before returning the same to the appellant. The counsel for the respondent states that the respondent may rely upon the documents and materials before the Special Court. This Tribunal does not express any opinion in this regard, the same, if necessary, may be relied upon in accordance with law.
|