9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 270 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - scheduled offences - provisional attachment - cash - gold and silver ornaments - driver of the vehicle was one Suresh Kumar, the driver of the car, which was used for transporting illicit liquor - HELD THAT - The remedy that is available to Suresh Kumar is to approach the Tribunal u/s.26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 PMLA and thereafter, u/s.42 of the PMLA to the High Court. In the light of the order of the Adjudicating Authority passed u/s.8(3) of the PMLA confirming the provisional order of attachment, the ornaments cannot be handed over to Suresh Kumar. However, we are of the opinion that since the ornaments are not liable for confiscation u/s.14 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act nor are they material evidence to connect the accused with the crime in question, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the ornaments in the custody of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram, as that would be an additional burden for the said Court. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram, are directed to hand over the ornaments in P.I.No.41/2015 dated 07.03.2015 in PEW Mamallapuram Crime No.96/2015 (now S.C.No.196/2017) on the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge cum Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpet, to the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai, under proper receipt. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the order of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate regarding the custody of seized cash and ornaments under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Provisional attachment order passed by the Deputy Director of Enforcement. 3. Confirmation of the provisional attachment order by the adjudicating authority. 4. Legal remedy available to the accused regarding the provisional attachment of assets. 5. Decision on the custody of the seized ornaments. Detailed Analysis: 1. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenged the order of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate regarding the custody of seized cash and ornaments under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The ED contended that the cash and ornaments were proceeds of crime and should not be returned to the accused, who was involved in transporting illicit liquor. The ED registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) and sought to retain custody of the assets. 2. The Deputy Director of Enforcement passed a provisional attachment order of the cash and ornaments, which were in the custody of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate. After due notice to the accused, the provisional attachment order was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Subsequently, a complaint was filed against the accused under the PML Act, and summons were yet to be served. 3. The accused had the legal remedy to approach the Tribunal under Section 26 of the PML Act and then to the High Court under Section 42 of the PML Act regarding the provisional attachment of assets. The adjudicating authority confirmed the provisional attachment order, indicating that the ornaments could not be handed over to the accused. 4. Considering that the ornaments were not subject to confiscation under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and were not essential evidence connecting the accused to the crime, the Court decided that retaining the ornaments in the custody of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate would serve no useful purpose. Therefore, the Court directed the Magistrate to hand over the ornaments to the Deputy Director of Enforcement under proper receipt for safe custody until further orders from the relevant court or tribunal. 5. The Court allowed the Criminal Original Petition, set aside the order of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate regarding the ornaments, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition. The Court appreciated the assistance rendered by the advocate appointed to represent the accused in the case.
|
