TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no jurisdiction vested with this Court. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved, an appeal has to be filed against the order passed in the writ petition even if the review applicants feel that the conclusion is erroneous in nature. The Review Applications are nothing but an attempt to re-argue the case, which cannot be permitted. The High Court is designed under the explanation to Section 42, which means, the place where the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. The criteria is not the place where the properties are situated and the jurisdiction is person centric and not property centric. If the appeal is filed by the Central Government, then the jurisdiction will be where the respondent resides or carries on business. Thus, Section 42 is purely person centric whereas a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 5 of PMLA is based on cause of action and not where the person resides. Therefore, the appeal filed under Section 42 of the PMLA will be filed before this Court and this Court has jurisdiction. Such provision cannot be applied for challenging the provisional order of attachment or ECIR in this case. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he criminal prosecution under Section 3 of the PMLA. Second is with reference to the attachment and confiscation of the property identified under the proceeds of the crime. According to the learned Senior counsel, the procedure(s) in respect of both the processes are apparently different except to the fact that on the decision of conviction by the Special Court, the power of confiscation of the attached property is also provided for. 4. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that PMLA clearly demarcates the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of both the processes. So far as offence of money laundering is concerned, the prosecution is only before the Special Court by filing of a complaint. In the event of conviction, the party has a remedy of appeal provided in terms of Code of Criminal Procedure and also to the High Court as could be seen under Section 44 and 47 of PMLA. So far as the attachment of the property is concerned, Section 5 provides provisional order of attachment. Section 16 enables carrying out survey and arriving at a conclusion as regards money laundering. Section 17 provides for search and seizure. Section 18 provides for search on person. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction vests with the High Court of Kerala is contrary to the stand taken by the respondent in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed before this Court. 6. As next fold of submission, the learned Senior counsel for the Review Applicant submitted that this Court dismissed the writ petitions also on the ground that there is an alternative remedy of appeal, which is also an error apparent on the face of record. According to the learned Senior Counsel, Section 8 of PMLA provides for filing of original complaint by the Enforcement Directorate/respondent seeking confirmation of the Provisional Order of Attachment. As such the adjudication provided under Section 8 of PMLA does not provide for examining the legality or impropriety of ECIR or provisional Order of Attachment issued to the Review Applicants. In fact, there is no remedy provided under Section 8 except to the extent pointed above and as provided under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 8 of PMLA. Further, the provisions of the statute do not provide any remedy or adjudication to an aggrieved person to challenge the ECIR. Therefore, there is no alternative remedy at all available to assail the ECIR and the only remedy available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by this Court in para No.19 to the effect that the offence under PMLA has to be tried by the Special Court, Kerala is based on no evidence and arguments. Therefore, the said finding has to be deleted. Thus, the learned Senior counsel sought for reviewing the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. 9. Countering the submissions of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Review Applications, Mr.R.Sankara Narayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent-Enforcement Directorate would submit that the writ petitions were filed challenging the provisional order of attachment (POA) as well as ECIR. Therefore, the question of deleting the findings of this Court in para No.19 does not arise. This Court has considered all the aspects and rendered findings. Absolutely there is no error apparent on the order passed in the writ petitions. The ECIR cannot be challenged before this Court and it has to be challenged only before the High Court of Kerala. 10. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General, Section 3 of the Act deals with offences under PMLA. It is an independent offence and this has to be tried before the Special Court withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the place where the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. The criteria is not the place where the properties are situated and the jurisdiction is person centric and not property centric. If the appeal is filed by the Central Government, then the jurisdiction will be where the respondent resides or carries on business. Thus, Section 42 is purely person centric whereas a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 5 of PMLA is based on cause of action and not where the person resides. Therefore, the appeal filed under Section 42 of the PMLA will be filed before this Court and this Court has jurisdiction. Such provision cannot be applied for challenging the provisional order of attachment or ECIR in this case. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by the Review Applicants. 15. The scope of review application is limited and it cannot be entertained only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. In this context, we gain strength from the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, wherein the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
