The two petitioners herein are the wife and husband, who seek a writ of mandamus for declaring the Provisional attachment Orders dated 21-10-2010 as illegal and violative of Article 20 of Constitution of India and further, the action of the 4th respondent in initiating Adjudication under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (henceforth referred to as “the PML Act”), as bad in law.

2. It is stated that the 1st petitioner was working, at the material point of time, as Senior Vice President & Global Head of Internal Audit of M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited (henceforth referred to as ‘the Company’ for brevity). It is stated that the C.B.C.I.D., Hyderabad has registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2009 on 09-01-2009 for offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the then Chairman of the Company, its Directors, Auditors and others. It is further stated that the said complaint has been forwarded to the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, on 12-01-2009. It is further submitted that pursuant to a notification dated 16-02-2009, the investigation has been entrusted to C.B.I. and the case was registered as C.C.No.187 of 2009 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and upon transfer to Special Court-cum-XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is numbered as C.C.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2010. The 1st petitioner is arrayed as Accused – 10 in the said criminal case. It is further averred that the Directorate of Enforcement moved Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2010 in C.C.No.1 of 2010 under Section 57 of the PML Act, for recording the statements of the 1st petitioner and others under the said Act. The said petition was ordered on 23-04-2010 allowing recording of the statements in the presence of the counsel for the accused. It is further stated that challenging the correctness and validity of the said order, the 1st petitioner herein filed Crl.R.C.No.907 of 2010 in this Court and while directing not to record further statements, the said Revision is posted for further consideration and it is still pending in this Court.

3. It was further submitted that when Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) has issued a letter on 30-04-2010, freezing the shares held by the petitioners in the Company, pursuant to a communication received by the said Bank from the Directorate of Enforcement, the 1st petitioner filed W.P.No.19564 of 2010 and the said case is still pending. At that stage, the present impugned orders have been passed ordering for provisional attachament of movable and immovable properties of the petitioners. Based upon the said provisional attachment order, the adjudicating authority issued notice on 07-12-2010 calling upon the petitioners to participate in the adjudiciation process. Hence, this Writ Petition.

4. Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Sri Rajeev Avasthi, learned special counsel for the respondents appearing on behalf of Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Venkateswara Rao would contend that under the Schedule to the PML Act, offences under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC are not included at the time when the said offences are alleged to have been committed by the 1st petitioner herein and hence, the question of proceeding against the petitioners under the provisions of the PML Act, would not arise. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the crime is registered against the 1st petitioner herein on 09-01-2009 under Section 420 IPC. As on that date, the said offence under Section 420 IPC is not forming part of the Schedule appended to the PML Act and hence, the question of registering a case under the PML Act against the 1st petitioner, would not arise. The learned counsel would further submit that the CBI has filed its charge sheet against the 1st pe