TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch he later on sought to rectify by moving an application for proponing of the date of hearing, cannot be used to prejudice the respondents. Thus, the period from the date when the respondent gave an undertaking before this Court i.e. 07.06.2011 till the passing of the order shall have to be excluded from the stipulated time period of 150 days as provided under the Act, 2002 for the purpose of sub Section (3) of Section 5 of the Act, 2002 – Petitions disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file his reply/response. - CRM M 693 of 2011 & CRM M 13453 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 10-1-2012 - MS. NIRMALJIT KAUR J. Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rajiv Awasthy, Advocate for the respondent NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. Both the aforementioned petitions shall be disposed of by this common order having been filed against the same order dated 08.12.2010 (P4) as the question involved in these petitions is identical. However, for the sake of arguments, the facts are being taken from CRM M 693 of 2011. The petitioner herein has filed a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the order dated 08.12.2010 (P4) as well as all the subsequent proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Deputy Director authorised by him for the purposes of this section, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that (a) any person is in possession of any proceeds of crime; (b) such person has been charged of having committed a scheduled offence; and (c) such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime under this Chapter, he may, by order in writing, provisionally attach such property for a period not exceeding one hundred and fifty days from the date of the order, in the manner provided in the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and the Director or the other officer so authorised by him, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be an officer under sub-rule (e) of rule 1 of that Schedule: Provided that no such order of attachment shall be made unless, in relation to the scheduled offence, a report has been forwarded to a Magistrate under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); or a complaint has been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcement Director as prescribed under the Act, 2002. Section 26 of the Act, 2002 provides an opportunity of appeal to the Appellate Authority against the order made by the Adjudicating Authority under the Act, 2002. Section 26 reads thus:- 26. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.-- (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (3), the Director or any person aggrieved by an order made by the Adjudicating Authority under this Act, may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. (2) Any banking company, financial institution or intermediary aggrieved by any order of the Director made under sub-section (2) of section 13, may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. (3) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within a period of forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order made by the Adjudicating Authority or Director is received and it shall be in such form and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity of being heard entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the Act, 2002 and if the petitioner is still not satisfied by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner has a remedy of an appeal before the High Court under section 42 of the Act, 2002. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute with respect to the above remedies available to him under the Act, has objected on the ground that the time period of 150 days as laid down in sub Section (3) of Section 5 of the. At, 2002 has since lapsed and, as such, the complaint cannot be adjudicated upon by the Adjudicating Authority. The said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit in view of the fact that after following due procedure as laid down under Section 5 of the Act, 2002, the matter has finally reached the Adjudicating authority and was listed for hearing on 26.08.2011. The stipulated time was to expire on 05.08.2011. However, the same was not taken up for hearing in view of the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondent before this Court on 07.06.2011. Learned counsel for the respondent had moved an application on 12.07.2011 in the present case, seeking preponement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he time between 10.11.2010 up to today, shall be excluded from reckoning for purposes of sib Section (3) of Section 5 of the PML Act. The principle laid down shall also be applicable in the facts of the present case. The delay caused on account of the proceedings having been stalled on the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent before this Court which he later on sought to rectify by moving an application for proponing of the date of hearing, cannot be used to prejudice the respondents. Thus, the period from the date when the learned counsel for the respondent gave an undertaking before this Court i.e. 07.06.2011 till the passing of the order shall have to be excluded from the stipulated time period of 150 days as provided under the Act, 2002 for the purpose of sub Section (3) of Section 5 of the Act, 2002. In view of the facts of the case and foregoing discussion, the present petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file his reply/response to the notice dated 20.04.2011 (P8) served by the New Delhi Bench of Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi, if not already responded to. The Adjudicating Authority thereafter, shall proceed to decide the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
