9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 976 - AT - Money LaunderingCoram non-judice - Seeking stay of the proceeding till such time the coram of Adjudicating Authority, as stipulated under Rule 6 (2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is constituted - HELD THAT - The perusal of the reasons given for cross examination and the questions would show that according to the appellant, most of the witnesses named above have not made any incriminating statement against it, yet the appellant prayed for cross examination of those witnesses. Few of them are even involved in alleged money laundering. The allegations are made mainly in reference to the documentary evidence collected by the Department yet ignored by the appellant. It is further a fact that the cross examination has been sought to prove that applicant had no communication for alleged transactions with M/s. DHFL involved in schedule offence rather appellant is not remotely connected with the offence of money laundering. Those common questions have been referred for majority of the witnesses ignoring the documentary evidence to prove it. The cross examination from the witnesses would be in reference to the documentary evidence for which an opportunity has been given to the appellant to contest the notice by filing reply and documents. The application to seek cross examination was filed even before filing reply to the notice along with the documents. It is otherwise a fact that Mr. Avinash Bhosale is connected with the appellant and an accused in the matter to be cross examined to espouse his own cause, cannot be permitted - the cross examination of witnesses sought by the appellant is for the sake of it and to delay the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority. The principle of natural justice would apply when some real prejudice is going to be caused out of the action of one party. In the instant case, the appellant has failed to reflect as to what prejudice is going to cause to him if the cross examination of witness is not permitted. It is apart from the fact that the material on record shows that the allegations against the appellant are in reference to the documentary evidence which has not been refuted by the appellant by filing reply. Sufficient safeguard has been provided and looking to the nature of proceedings, cross examination cannot be permitted as a rule rather it can be as an exception. A case of exceptional nature is not made out herein. Thus, we do not find any reason to cause interference with the order of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority - Looking to the scope of attachment proceedings, cross examination can be permitted only as an exception and not as a rule, otherwise it may delay the proceedings, resulting in lapse of proceedings and causing serious consequences even against the accused, if they are forced to disclose their defence at a premature stage. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Constitution of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 6(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. Denial of cross-examination of witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority. Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitution of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 6(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 The appellant challenged the order dated 10.11.2022, arguing that the proceedings should be stayed until the Adjudicating Authority is constituted as per Section 6(2) of the Act, which requires a Chairperson and two other Members. The Adjudicating Authority, however, decided the issue with a single Member Bench, which the appellant claimed was "coram non-judice." Upon reviewing Section 6 of the Act, it was noted that while Section 6(2) stipulates the composition of the Adjudicating Authority, Section 6(5)(b) authorizes the Chairperson to constitute a Bench with one or two Members. The provision does not mandate a three-Member Bench for hearing cases. The Bench can validly consist of one Member unless the case requires a two-Member Bench as per Section 6(7). The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Madras High Court in "G. Gopalakrishnan Versus Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai," which upheld the validity of a single-Member Bench. The Tribunal also cited the Delhi High Court's judgment in "J. Sekar Versus Union of India," which clarified that single-Member Benches are permissible under the Act. Thus, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument and upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority, denying the stay of proceedings. 2. Denial of Cross-Examination of Witnesses The appellant's second appeal concerned the denial of an application to cross-examine certain witnesses. The appellant argued that cross-examination is a part of natural justice and is essential to bring the truth on record. The appellant cited several judgments to support this argument. The Tribunal noted that the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority are summary in nature and are aimed at confirming the Provisional Attachment Order to secure the property obtained from proceeds of crime. The final order of confiscation lies with the Trial Court/Special Court. The Tribunal reviewed the facts of the case, including the provisional attachment of properties valued at Rs.164,67,00,000/- based on allegations of money laundering involving Yes Bank and DHFL. The appellant sought cross-examination to prove that it had no connection with the alleged transactions or money laundering. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had not filed a reply to the notice along with the documents provided by the Enforcement Directorate. The cross-examination was sought to substitute the arguments to be raised before the Adjudicating Authority, which the Tribunal found inappropriate. The Tribunal emphasized that cross-examination should not be permitted merely to delay proceedings. The Tribunal also noted that the principle of natural justice applies when real prejudice is caused. In this case, the appellant failed to demonstrate any real prejudice. The Tribunal cited the Madras High Court's judgment in "G. Gopalakrishnan Versus Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai," which referred to the Supreme Court's observation that natural justice is not an unruly horse and must be applied with flexibility. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's request for cross-examination was intended to derail the proceedings and cause the provisional attachment to lapse. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order denying the cross-examination, stating that it should be permitted only as an exception and not as a rule. Conclusion The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. The Adjudicating Authority's orders were upheld, confirming that a single-Member Bench is valid under the Act and denying the request for cross-examination of witnesses.
|
