2024 (8) TMI 1473 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - refusal to release certain properties that according to the petitioners were acquired by her father-in-law before the occurrence of the crime, initiation of the proceedings in respect of the predicate offence and the subsequent proceedings under PMLA Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - It is now well settled in law that the exception to the principle of alternative remedy for approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are inter alia, the jurisdictional error, violation of the statutory provision and the statutory remedy being not truly efficacious or alternative. The principles are now far too well settled. It is however equally well settled that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary. The Single Bench appears to be of the view that the petitioner has an opportunity to explain to the adjudicating authority as to why the property in question should not be attached. He may do so. From that point of view, the order of Single Bench, cannot be deemed as illegal or contrary to law. The impugned order therefore, does not call for interference - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

The High Court of Calcutta upheld the order refusing to release certain properties acquired before the crime occurred. The court allowed time for the petitioner to reply to the provisional attachment order. The appellant argued that attachment should not apply to pre-crime acquired property. The court stated that the order was not illegal and should not be interfered with. The adjudicating authority must decide on the objection within three months. The court did not rule on the attachment's merits, leaving it to the authority. The appeal and connected application were disposed of.