TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property or the order of freezing served under Sub- Section (1A) of Section 17 of the Act of 2002 to the adjudicating authority within a period of 30 days from the date of such seizure and freezing. The adjudicating authority, in turn, is empowered by virtue of Section 20(1) of the Act of 2002 to direct continuation of the freezing of the Bank Account or retention of the seized property within a period of 180 days from the date on which such property was seized or frozen, as the case may be. There is no dispute amongst the parties that the list of Bank Accounts enclosed with the Original Application (O.A.) filed by the ED to the adjudicating authority, did not contain, the numbers of the 5 (4+1) disputed Bank Accounts of the writ petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petitioners, Smt. Zoramthari, proprietor of M/s Thari Enterprise, and Shri Lalrinhlua, Proprietor of M/s LRH Enterprise filed criminal writ petitions in the Aizawl Bench of this Court being WP(Crl.) No. 2/2022 and WP(Crl.) No. 3/2022 respectively in order to challenge freezing of 4(four) Bank Accounts belonging to Smt. Zoramthari [writ petitioner in WP(Crl.) No. 2/2022] and one Bank Account belonging to Shri Lalrinhlua [writ petitioner WP(Crl.) No. 3/2022]. These Bank Accounts were freezed by the Banks concerned under the direction of the appellant i.e. Directorate of Enforcement (ED). Brief Facts :- 3. FIR No. 216/2021 dated 14.12.2021 was registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against one M/s Nayla Family Exports P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed along with the O.A. Nonetheless, the Banks concerned were not permitting operation of these Accounts. 4. The respondents/writ petitioners filed their written objection before the adjudicating authority, who proceeded to pass the Confirmation Order dated 22.08.2022 allowing the O.A. filed by the E.D. 5. Upon this, the writ petitions (Criminal) in question came to be instituted before the Aizawl Bench on numerous grounds. The pertinent one that 4(four) Bank Accounts of the writ petitioner Smt. Zoramthari [WP(Crl.) No. 2/2023] and one Bank Account of writ petitioner Shri Lalrinhlua [WP(Crl.) No. 3/2023 ] were not included in the list of Accounts sought to be confirmed under Section 17(4) of the Act of 2002 nor did the adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of 180 days as provided under Section 20(1) of the Act of 2002. 9. This composite order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions of the respondents/writ petitioners is assailed in these two intra Court writ appeals. 10. Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel representing Directorate of Enforcement appellant herein, vehemently and fervently contended that the existence of a validly issued freezing order dated 10.02.2022 was demonstrated before the writ court by filing the same with the affidavit-in-opposition. However, the numbers of the Bank Accounts (4+1) in question could not be incorporated in the list filed along with the original application seeking confirmation due to inadvertence. 11. As per Mr. Dhar, the omis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit petitioners as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He further urged that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in holding that the proceedings before the adjudicating authority had lapsed by efflux of time is also unassailable in the eyes of law. He thus implored the Court to dismiss the writ appeals. 13. We have considered the submissions advanced at Bar and carefully perused the impugned judgment and the material placed on record. 14. The initial order of freezing of the 5(4+1) Bank Accounts of the respondents/writ petitioners which was purportedly undertaken by the authorities of ED under Sub- Section (1A) of Section 17 of the Act of 2002. The authorities seizing/freezing of the record is required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication filed by the ED to the adjudicating authority would clearly mean that the ED never sought for continuance of the order of freezing. As a consequence, the initial order of freezing even if in existence, expired on completion of 30 days i.e. on 12.03.2022. 17. In this background, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in directing de-freezing of 5(4+1) Bank Accounts, because the continued embargo on the operation thereof by the Banks concerned on purported instruction of the ED clearly amounts to violation of the fundamental rights of the Account holders, i.e. respondents/writ petitioners as enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The availability of statutory remedy cannot act to the detriment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
