Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2020 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 119 - AT - Money LaunderingJurisdiction - power of Tribunal to grant stay/pass order of status quo - Retention of documents, digital devices and other things seized/recovered - section 17(4) of the PMLA - whether the Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant stay or passed any order of status quo which has the consequence of stalling the investigation? HELD THAT:- Section 26 (1) clearly provides that the appeal to this Tribunal is to be preferred against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority has passed the impugned order under Section 8(3) of the said Act allowing the application filed by the Respondent in the interest of investigation and interest of justice and permitted that the records seized in the case to be retained in terms of Section 17(4) of the PMLA, 2002. Since the order under challenged is an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority so this Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction to grant stay of the impugned order but the stay as sought in the present appeals, by the appellant cannot be granted as the appellant is seeking stay of the impugned order consequence of which is to stall the investigation. In the present case, during the course of hearing it is submitted by the learned Sr. counsel for the appellant that they have received summons to unlock the cell phones, which according to the appellant, violates privacy of the appellants. What it appears is that, actually, the appellant wants a direction from this Tribunal to issue an order of status quo re qua the cell phones which is nothing but in the guise to stall the investigation and the same is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as the matter pertains to issue of summons was not before the Adjudicating Authority. The submissions made with regard to issue of summons/unlock of cell phones and the violation of the fundamental rights as enshrined under Articles 20(3) & 20(1) are not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. We have to read Section 17(1)(i) to (iv) in conjunction with Section 8(3)(a) wherein it is clearly provided that the retention of record shall continue during investigation for a period not exceeding 365 days, as the case may be. From the above, it appears that both the provisions are inter-related so the records are meant for the investigations - the appellants do not have a prima facie case for grant of any stay or status quo order with respect to records including digital devices seized during the search made by the Respondent. Application dismissed.
|