Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 97 - AT - Money LaunderingOffence under PMLA - provisional attachment orders - final order by the Madras High Court was reserved on 13.06.2017 and the same was rendered on 13.07.2017, whereby the provisional attachment order 09/2017 dated 07.04.2017 was quashed - Held that - We are of the view that it is a serious matter that once the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement were party before the Writ Petition where the quashing orders were passed and were aware of the proceedings, the impugned order has been passed contrary to the judgment given by the Madras High Court stated to be on account of some communication gap. We are of the view that necessary steps should be taken immediately so that it should not happen in future as the Adjudicating Authority is supposed to respect the orders of Higher Courts. In the present case, there is no valid explanation given by the learned counsel for the respondent as to why the order of the High Court was not given due respect except the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Department may challenge the order passed by the Madras High Court or the respondent might not be aware. At present there is no impediment not to accept the judgment of the Higher Court i.e. Chennai High Court where the proceedings of Section 5 (Provisional Attachment Order) have been quashed. Thus the attachment does not exist. The appellant would be entitled to take back the possession of the attached property as per procedure to release the properties.
Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA). 2. Allegations against the appellant, a public servant, for possessing assets for alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. 3. Trial progress in the court of 14th Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai. 4. Registration of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against the appellant and another individual. 5. Provisional attachment order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA. 6. Criminal petition filed to quash the provisional attachment order. 7. Judgment by the High Court of Judiciary at Chennai quashing the provisional attachment order. 8. Confirmation of the provisional order by the Adjudicating Authority post the High Court judgment. 9. Allegations of lack of awareness by the hearing officer regarding the High Court judgment. 10. Representation of parties during the High Court proceedings. 11. Challenge to the confirmation order post High Court judgment. 12. Adjudicating Authority's duty to respect higher court orders and the need to prevent such communication gaps in the future. 13. Decision to set aside the impugned order and release the attached property to the appellant. Analysis: 1. The appeal was made under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the Adjudicating Authority's order. The appellant, a public servant, faced allegations of possessing assets related to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The trial was ongoing in the court of 14th Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai. 2. An Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered against the appellant and another individual by the Deputy Director, ED, Chennai. The provisional attachment order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA, leading to the attachment of various properties. 3. A criminal petition was filed to quash the provisional attachment order, which was subsequently granted by the High Court of Judiciary at Chennai. The High Court judgment quashed the provisional attachment order, yet the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the provisional order post the High Court's decision. 4. The Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the provisional order, despite the High Court judgment, raised concerns about awareness and communication gaps. The need for the Adjudicating Authority to respect higher court orders was emphasized to prevent such occurrences in the future. 5. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and releasing the attached property to the appellant. The decision aimed to uphold the High Court's judgment and ensure the proper handling of legal proceedings in compliance with court orders.
|