2021 (4) TMI 313 - HC - Money Laundering

Attachment of various property belonging to the petitioner - Applicability of PML Act to the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir - action of the Authorities under the PML Act - HELD THAT - It can be seen that the proceedings initiated against Ahsan Ahmad Mirza were challenged by him in a petition AHSAN AHMAD MIRZA AND OTHERS VERSUS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ANOTHER 2019 (10) TMI 1408 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT , which petition was, however, dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 15.10.2019. Counsel for the parties state that a Letters Patent Appeal is filed and is pending before a Division Bench of this Court. Having gone through the writ petition as also the Judgement of the Coordinate Bench in Ahsan Mirza s case, it can be seen that some of the issues raised by the petitioner in the present petition were also issues, which were raised and decided by the Coordinate Bench, which now, form the subject matter of consideration by the Division Bench of this Court - Considering the fact that the genesis of the proceedings both against the petitioner, Dr. Farooq Abdullah as also the appellant, Ahsan Ahmad Mirza, lies in the case which is pending trial before the Designated Court and the issues being common, in my opinion, therefore, are required to be considered together. The matter be considered by a Division Bench of this Court.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to quash Original Complaint and Provisional Attachment Order under PML Act, jurisdiction and applicability of PML Act to Jammu and Kashmir, procedural irregularities.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash Original Complaint No. 1387 of 2021 and Provisional Attachment Order No. 03/2020 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act). The Directorate of Enforcement had attached properties of the petitioner by virtue of the order of attachment.

2. An FIR was registered in connection with misappropriation of funds of the JKCA, and the case was transferred to the CBI. The CBI filed its final report, and the matter is pending trial before the Designated Court, with the petitioner and another individual reflected as accused.

3. The petitioner challenged the action of the Authorities under the PML Act, questioning jurisdiction, applicability of the PML Act to Jammu and Kashmir, and alleging illegality and procedural irregularities.

4. The issues raised by the petitioner in the present petition were similar to those raised and decided in another case, which is now under consideration by a Division Bench of the Court. The genesis of the proceedings against the petitioner and the other accused lies in the case pending trial before the Designated Court, necessitating a joint consideration of the matters.

5. After considering the circumstances and opinions of the counsels, it was decided that the matter should be considered by a Division Bench of the Court. Both the Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the Solicitor General of India expressed no objection to this decision.

6. The Registrar Judicial was directed to list the matter along with the records of another related case before the appropriate Bench after obtaining permission from the Chief Justice for further proceedings and consideration by the Division Bench.