2024 (4) TMI 75 - HC - Money Laundering

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Money Laundering - scheduled offences - main contention raised by the petitioner was that he did not have a proper opportunity to place before the adjudicating authority certain documents which were at the relevant time not in his possession - HELD THAT - If one goes through the scheme of the PMLA, sub-Section 1 of Section 26 provides for the filing of an appeal by any person aggrieved by an order made by the adjudicating authority, under the Act, before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 25 therein. This appeal is to be filed within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The proviso to Section 3 of Section 26 empowers the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay beyond the period of limitation of 45 days. Thus, the scheme of the Act provides for two appeals, i.e. first to the Appellate Tribunal and the second appeal, both on law and on fact, to this Court. Looking to the scheme of the Act, where the second appeal is before the very Court where the petitioner has now chosen to invoke its power under Article 227, it would be inappropriate for this Court to exercise its writ powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, when the second appeal is to the very same Court. Considering the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court within a period of 45 days limitation under Section 27 of the PMLA, it would be appropriate for the Appellate Tribunal before whom the petitioner may now file an appeal to consider this fact and exercise its jurisdiction to condone the delay in terms of the proviso to sub-Section 3 of Section 26 favourably. The petitioner makes a statement that he would file an appeal before the Appellate forum within the period of four weeks from today - The Appellate forum may also consider the additional documents to which reference has been made in paragraph 3 of this order whilst disposing of the appeal. Needless to state that these documents may be considered only after the respondents file their say to the application that the petitioner would move along with his appeal memo on that count. The petition shall stand dismissed as not maintainable in view of the alternate and equally efficacious remedy available of an appeal in terms of Section 26 of the PMLA.

Summary

Issues involved:
Impugning order u/s 8 of PMLA - Proper opportunity for documents - Alternate remedy under Section 26

Impugned Order u/s 8 of PMLA:
The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) which was based on a search conducted at the petitioner's premises resulting in the seizure of foreign currency and registration of offences under scheduled sections of IPC. An application was filed for adjudication under Section 8, and the impugned order was passed on that application as per sub-Sections 2 and 3 of Section 8.

Proper Opportunity for Documents:
The petitioner contended that he was not given a fair chance to present certain crucial documents to the adjudicating authority, which could have influenced the outcome in his favor. These documents were produced later and were crucial for his defense.

Alternate Remedy under Section 26:
The Respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal under Section 26 before the Appellate Tribunal, citing a relevant Supreme Court judgment. However, the petitioner argued that the impugned order lacked jurisdiction as it did not establish the involvement of the perpetrators in money laundering, which is essential for the authority to proceed under Section 8.

Court's Decision:
The Court noted the statutory scheme providing for two appeals - first to the Appellate Tribunal and then to the High Court on questions of law or fact. Referring to the principle established in a specific case, the Court concluded that the petition should not be entertained under Article 227 due to the availability of an alternate remedy. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, emphasizing the importance of following the statutory appeal process.