9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fically note that it appears that the Respondent No. 1 has failed to take into consideration the observations of this Court in the U.S. Awasthi case where the use of such disconcerting language as contained in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, has been frowned upon by this Court. Repeated use of templated paragraphs, as though the principles of Natural Justice are mere rhetoric, is not permissible. The present order shall be treated as a warning to the concerned authority to not use such language, failing which the Court would be constrained to direct action to be taken. The Appellate Tribunal, PMLA shall ensure that the Respondent No. 1. shall abide by the principles of natural justice as also the observations of this Court given in Dr. U.S. Awasthi - The Petitioner is permitted to approach the Appellate Tribunal, PMLA within a period of one month. The period during which the present writ petition was pending shall be deductible from the period of limitation for filing of the appeal - the observations of this Court qua the language of the impugned order used would not have a bearing on the merits of the case. Petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) 3109/2023& CM APPL. 12095/202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these findings are based on material which forms part of the Original Complaint and relied upon documents. Moreover, the disclosure of the documents to the Appellants and the opportunity given to rebut and explain the same is a substantial compliance with the principle of natural justice that being so there is and can be no prejudice to the Appellant nor is any demonstrated by the Appellant before the bench. Regarding the cross examination of Shri Jigar Hirjibhai Dudhat, whose statement has been recorded, and a copy also been provided, the opportunity has been given to the defendant to rebut and explain the same. If there is a deficiency in the argument of the Complainant solely based on the statement without any corroborative evidence, the Defendant is at liberty to highlight in course of argument/ by way of written submission. Similarly, if no questions have been asked from Shri Vallahbhai Mavjibhai Khunt and Kantibhai Shamjibhai Ramani regarding their presence while finalizing the deal under reference, it may be pointed out in the written submission refuting the inference drawn on the basis of statement of a single partner. However, the Defendant has himself admitted that Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. The Courts cannot look at law in the abstract or natural justice as mere artifact. Nor can they fit into a rigid mould the concept of reasonable opportunity. If the totality of circumstances satisfies the Court that the party visited with adverse order has not suffered from denial of reasonable opportunity, the Court will decline to be punctilious or fanatical as if the rules of natural justice were sacred scriptures. 8. Moreover, when a person is charged with serious offences of money laundering affecting the financial status of the nation, cannot be heard to complaint about violation of principles of natural justice on the basis of own self-serving perception that he/she being victimized by State action. If such complaint is to be taken note of at every st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not find it to be a fit case to accept the prayer of the appellant to allow cross examination of the witnesses. 5. The submission of Mr. Khemka, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Respondent No. 1 has used the same language as was frowned upon by this Court in W.P.(C) 125/2023 titled Dr. U.S. Awasthi v. Adjudicating Authority PMLA Anr. . He points out that the language used is also almost identical and the paragraph from the order in U.S. Awasthi case has been simply duplicated and repeated in the impugned order. Mr. Khemka, ld. Counsel also submits that the rejection of the application for cross examination is untenable even on merits. He points out that despite the fact that the Respondent No. 1 was informed of the pendency of this writ petition before this Court, the Respondent No. 1 has gone ahead and passed the final order of confirmation of the provisional attachment dated 29th March , 2023. 6. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submits that the Respondent No. 1 is an independent official who is not being defended by the ED. However, he submits that insofar as the use of identical language is concerned, he i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order record a finding whether any or all of the property is involved in money laundering under Section 8(2) of the Act. After arriving at a conclusion under Section 8(2), the Adjudicating Authority is to decide the question as to whether the attachment has to be confirmed or modified or detached under Section 8(3) of the PMLA. 17. The entire process has to be concluded within 180 days from the date of issuance of the show cause notice, provisional attachment order under Section 5 of the PMLA. Thus, the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority have to proceed in a speedy manner and go through the various steps provided under Section 8 of PMLA. 18. An application for cross-examination filed before the Adjudicating Authority would be an integral part of the process of adjudication and would not be alien to Section 8 proceedings, when considered in this above statutory scheme and context. 19. However, the question here is whether a writ petition is to be entertained against such an order. While there can be no doubt that in case of violation of principles of natural justice or jurisdictional errors, a writ petition can be entertained, as per the settled legal pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Single Judge also. 12. The senior counsel for the appellant, though not controverting the aforesaid legal position, contends that if the appellants have a right in law to cross-examine the witnesses whose testimonies are intended to be used against the appellants, why should this Court not interfere at this stage itself instead of allowing the Adjudicating Authority to proceed on a futile exercise and which will only result in multiplicity of proceedings. 13. We are unable to agree. The Adjudicating Authority is currently seized of and in seisin of the complaints. We, at this stage, do not know as to which way the order of the Adjudicating Authority will go. It cannot also be said at this stage whether the Adjudicating Authority even if deciding against the appellants will rely upon the material before it qua which the appellants claim a right of cross-examination. All this can be known only when the Adjudicating Authority passes an order and qua which if the appellants are aggrieved, the appellants shall have their statutory remedy. Any interference by us at this stage in the proceedings of which the Adjudicating Authority is seized is thus uncalled for and woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the Court would be constrained to direct action to be taken. For the sake of reference and clarity the objectionable paragraph in the impugned order is again extracted below: It is always open the accused of the alleged offenders to make more noise about the so called violation of principles of natural justice and such noise can be heard quite often in these type of matters with a view to drag the proceedings and scuttle the efforts of the authorities concerned to pin down the offenders to the crime in furtherance of the provisions of the Act. Ultimately it boils down to the fact that interference by this Authority on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice at every stage for the asking, would ultimately end in stifling the efforts of the authorities in implementing the provisions of the PMLA for which it is enacted. Copy of this order be brought to the notice of the Respondent No. 1, by Mr. Zoheb Hossein. 11. The Appellate Tribunal, PMLA shall ensure that the Respondent No. 1. shall abide by the principles of natural justice as also the observations of this Court given in Dr. U.S. Awasthi (supra). The Appellate Tribunal, PMLA would take the above o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
