New Delhi:
Property seized by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) beneath the Prevention of Cash-laundering Act (PMLA) have to be returned if the investigation doesn’t end in any proceedings inside twelve months, the Delhi Excessive Courtroom has held.
In an order handed earlier this week, Justice Navin Chawla stated the continuation of a seizure past twelve months, within the absence of the pendency of any proceedings regarding any offence earlier than a court docket, shall be confiscatory in nature and with out the authority of legislation and, thus, violative of Article 300A of the Structure.
The court docket’s determination got here on a petition filed by the decision skilled of Bhushan Energy and Metal Restricted (BPSL) towards the continued seizure of varied paperwork, information, digital units and gold and diamond jewelry which have an mixture worth of greater than Rs 85 lakh from his premises pursuant to a money-laundering case.
Within the absence of any proceedings in relation to the seized property, the court docket directed the authorities to return the identical to the petitioner.
“The natural consequence of the investigation for a period beyond 365 days not resulting in any proceedings relating to any offence under the Act, in terms of section 8(3) of the (Prevention of Money Laundering) Act, is that such seizure lapses and the property so seized must be returned to the person from whom it was so seized,” the court docket dominated.
“The respondents (ED) are directed to return the documents, digital devices, property and other material seized from the petitioner pursuant to the search-and-seizure operation conducted on August 19 and 20, 2020 forthwith to the petitioner, subject to any order to the contrary passed by any competent court,” it ordered.
The company argued that the seizure has to proceed through the pendency of the proceedings earlier than the trial court docket after a prosecution criticism has been filed earlier than the court docket involved, no matter whether or not it has arrayed the petitioner as an accused or not.
The court docket noticed that retention of the paperwork and properties has been allowed for the needs of investigation or adjudication and will be sustained past twelve months if any continuing is initiated earlier than the particular court docket in relation to the property or the document so connected, seized or frozen.
Within the current case, nevertheless, the investigation didn’t culminate into any criticism nor did it culminate right into a supplementary criticism to the unique one filed towards BPSL and others, the court docket added.
“It is held that the period of 365 days from the passing of the order dated 10.02.2021 by the adjudicating authority having been passed, the documents, digital device, property seized from the petitioner in the search and seizure conducted on August 19 and 20, 2020 from the premises of the petitioner are liable to be returned,” the court docket concluded.
“The continuation of such seizure beyond 365 days, in the absence of the pendency of any proceedings relating to any offence under this Act before a court or under the corresponding law of any other country before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction outside India, shall be confiscatory in nature, without authority of law and, therefore, violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India,” it stated.
(Aside from the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV employees and is printed from a syndicated feed.)