TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which is entertained as a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA). We do not want to arrogate to ourselves the powers of the Appellate Tribunal by entertaining this writ petition. Hence, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 26 of PML Act. No costs. - W.P.No.26551 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 13-10-2022 - HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramesh for Mr.T.Thiyagarajan For the Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh Special Public Prosecutor (Enforcement Directorate) ORDER [Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] Seeking quashment of the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent in Origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lenging which, this writ petition has been filed. 3. The order of adjudication clearly states as under : An appeal against this order lies to the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, PMLA, New Delhi under Section 26 of the PMLA Act. The Appeal may be filed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order OR within the time limit as applicable, to be ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the orders dated 23.03.2020, 08.03.2021,27.04.2021, 23.09.2021 10.01.2022 in connection with cognizance for extension of limitation. 4. When we brought this to the notice of Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, he stated that when there is a jurisdictional error, the order of the Adjudicating Authority a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stitutional infringement where an accused is trapped and sweeping interrogations are conducted aimed at justifying the summons issued. In respect of Section 44(1)(d), it is stated that the right to a fair trial is taken away and this provision irreversibly prejudices the accused in the trial adjudicating the predicate offence. 5. Mr.V.Ramesh contended that the provisional order of attachment which was passed on 01.02.2022 can remain in force only for a period of 180 days and in this case, the said period expired on 30.07.2022 and therefore, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 22.08.2022 confirming the provisional order of attachment is non est in law. 6. Per contra, Mr.N.Ramesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter, we do not want to arrogate to ourselves the powers of the Appellate Tribunal by entertaining this writ petition. Hence, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 26 of PML Act. No costs. [1] This writ petition was dismissed by this Bench on 13.10.2022. At the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this matter has been posted today under the caption for being mentioned . 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is an error in paragraph no.4 of the order dated 13.10.2022, in that, while making his submissions on 13.10.2022, he relied only on paragraph nos. 57 and 61 from the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Cho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y recorded by the authorised officer. Notably, the provisional order of attachment operates for a fixed duration not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of the order. This is yet another safeguard provisioned in the 2002 Act itself. .............. 291. The third proviso in Section 5(1) of the 2002 Act is another safeguard introduced vide Act 13 of 2018 about the manner in which period of one hundred and eighty days need to be reckoned thereby providing for fixed tenure of the provisional attachment order. Before the expiry of the statutory period relating to the provisional attachment order, the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director immediately after attachment under subsection (1) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
