The Prevention of Money Laundering Act allows legal representatives to continue appeals without a specified limitation period, and the application of CPC provisions is inappropriate in such cases.

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)

The present Appeal has been preferred against the order of the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi, dated 13.05.2024 passed in FPA-PMLA-227/HYD/2011. Vide said order, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application i.e., MP-PMLA- 12750/HYD/2023 (Misc.), seeking to bring on record the Legal Representative of the deceased appellant, as also the appeal.

2. Heard Mr. C.V.Narasimham, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Josyula Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The brief narrative of the case for better appreciation and adjudication of questions of law may be stated thus:

4. One Mr.A.S.V.Krishnam Raju filed the above said appeal i.e., FPA- PMLA-227/HYD/2011 under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (for short “the PMLA”) against the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority in OC No.38/2009, dated 14.01.2010. The genesis for the complaint was a letter dated 07.01.2009 addressed by Mr. B.Ramalinga Raju to the shareholders of M/s.SCSL (Satyam Computer Services Limited) intimating that books of accounts of M/s.SCSL were falsified and the financial figures were inflated and the FIR registered on 09.01.2009 on a complaint by one of the investors against Mr.Ramalinga Raju and other promoters of M/s.SCSL under Section 120B r/w Section 406, 420, 467, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. The case was subsequently taken over by the CBI. Since the commission of offence under Section 467 of IPC is a scheduled offence under the PMLA, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case by filing ECIR dated 23.01.2009. Based on the charge sheet filed by the CBI dated 07.04.2009 and further investigations, having come to a conclusion that the offences of money laundering within the meaning of Section 3 of PMLA was committed, the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad Zone Unit / the respondent issued a Provisional Attachment Order PAO No.1/2009, dated 18.08.2009, provisionally attaching the various properties of M/s SCSL and its Directors, including the properties of the appellant in the above mentioned appeal i.e., Mr.A.S.V.Krishnam Raju.

5. Subsequently, the respondent filed a complaint vide OC No.38/2009 before Adjudicating Authority as required under Section 5 (5) of the PMLA and the said authority issued notices to the defendants therein. Mr. A.S.V.Krishnam Raju, who was arrayed as defendant No.102 in the complaint, submitted his objections along with others. Thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority vide orders dated 14.01.2010 confirmed the order of Provisional Attachment and directed that the attachment of the properties shall: (a) continue during the pendency of the proceedings relating to the schedule offences before the Trial Court; and (b) become final after the guilt of the persons is proved in the Trial Court and order of such Trial become final.

6. Aggrieved by the orders of the Adjudicating Authority Mr.A.S.V.Krishnam Raju filed the above mentioned appeal raising various grounds. During the pendency of the appeal, he died on 20.03.2018 leaving behind his legal heir one Smt.A.Santhi Padma Nagaveni, daughter. Seeking to record her as Legal Representative of deceased- appellant in the appeal pending before the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, she filed a miscellaneous application and the same was dismissed vide impugned order. The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal also dismissed the Appeal as abated in view of the death of the appellant in the said Appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, Smt.Nagaveni, filed the present appeal.

7. Mr. Narasimham, learned counsel made submissions, inter alia, that the late Mr.A.S.V.Krishnam Raju, who was working as Assistant General Manager in M/s.Maytas Properties Ltd., purchased agricultural property of an extent of Ac.6-00 cents, for a valuable sale consideration out of the salary amounts received from M/s MAYTAS Pvt. Ltd., and the same was attached by the Enforcement authorities and the Adjud