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 1462 - AT - Money LaunderingOffence under PMLA - no Provisional Attachment Order confirmed within 180 days as prescribed under the Act - HELD THAT:- In the present case in terms of Section 5 (1) of the PMLA no Provisional Attachment Order has been confirmed within 180 days as prescribed under the Act which is mandatory from the date of the issuance of the provisional attachment order i.e. 28th March, 2018 bearing No. 08/2018, as such the provisional attachment order was expired on 24.09.2018 and after the expiry of the such period the provisional attachment order is not to be confirmed and the Adjudicating Authority was having no option but to return the file to the complainant, with directions for release of the properties attached. No adjournment during the proceedings for adjournment of hearing was sought by the counsel of the appellants as alleged. Section 5 (1) mandates that properties cannot be attached for more than 180 days, otherwise such proceedings are entitled to be dropped, as the prescribed period of time is mandated in the statute itself. It is a Special Act. The Section 5(1) has to be construed strictly. The said period of time cannot be extended under any circumstances. The prescribed period of time stipulated in the section of any statutes cannot be extended under any circumstances. In the present case, under section-5 provides that the judgement proceeding shall be completed within 180 days. The same has not happened despite of the direction issued by the Hon‘ble Court, therefore, the attachment does not exist. The impugned order has been passed without application of mind. Thus, the same is set-aside. The provisional attachment order is also quashed by allowing the present appeals. Admittedly, the FIR/ RC was registered on 23rd September, 2003. The case of appellants was that after filing the charge sheet the Act of PMLA cannot be invoked as such whole exercise is without jurisdiction. The said fact was not mentioned in ECIR. Reasons to believe are not produced. It was the duty of the authorised officer to mention the date of registering the FIR. This Tribunal does not wish to express any opinion as to whether it is deliberately done or it was due to mistake as the provisions of schedule offences were incorporated only on 1.6.2009. It is pertinent to mention that the appellants have raised many other issues, however, this Tribunal has since decided the main issue in hand, therefore, there is no need to discuss the other issues.
|