9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2023, while issuing notice. 4. A reference to only few basic facts will be necessary. On 17th March, 2017, ECIR was registered by the Enforcement Directorate (for short, "the ED") against the respondent and others. During the course of search on 13th October, 2017, various electronic items, documents and cash were seized by the ED. The Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 4th April, 2018 under Section 8(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, "the PMLA") confirming the earlier order under Section 17(4) of the PMLA. A complaint was filed on 8th February, 2018 under Section 44 of the PMLA on which cognizance was taken by the Special Court on 19th February, 2018. 5. In an appeal preferred by the respondent before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sarily retained by the appellant for inordinarily long time though the same are not relevant for the complaint filed by the appellant. He states that, even as of today, the same have not been relied upon or used by the appellant in the complaint. He submitted that continuation of the order of retention will be unjust in this case. 8. A very limited issue arises for consideration in this appeal. The issue is about the period for which the order of attachment or retention or freezing passed by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-Section (3) of Section 8 will continue to operate. Section 8 of the PMLA was amended from time to time. We are concerned with Section 8 which was on the statute book from 14th May, 2015 till 18th April, 2018 (both d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There is no dispute that the complaint is based on ECIR dated 17th March, 2017 in which the respondent was shown as one of the accused. Moreover, clause (a) will apply during the continuation of the proceedings relating to an offence under the PMLA in a Court. There is no dispute that when an order under Section 8(3) was passed, the proceedings of a complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA was pending before the Special Court and cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA was taken on the basis of the complaint. For attracting clause (a), it is enough if a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is pending. It is not necessary for the applicability of clause (a) that the person affected by the order un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le when the order dated 4th April, 2018 was passed under Section 8(3). Even assuming that the amended clause (a) was applicable, even after completion of investigation for 90 days, the order under Section 8(3) would continue to operate as the complaint remained pending. Therefore, in our view, the Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed an error and both orders deserve to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 16th February, 2022 of the High Court and the impugned order dated 25th April, 2019 passed by the Appellate Tribunal and restore the order dated 4th April, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority with a clarification that the same shall continue to remain in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
