R.K. Gauba, J.

These five appeals presented under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 ("PMLA", for short) against more or less similar orders of the appellate tribunal (constituted under Section 25), such orders having been rendered on appeals of the respondents ("banks") vis-a-vis the orders of provisional attachment issued by the enforcement officers under Section 5, as confirmed by the adjudicating authority under Section 8, give rise, inter alia, to certain common questions of law of import concerning nature of property that may be attached under this special law as indeed the conflict arising from claim of bonafide acquisition of interest by third parties. Hence, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

THE ISSUES

2. The measure of attachment of property involved in "money laundering", it essentially representing "proceeds of crime" (as defined in law), is provided to ensure that the ultimate objective of "confiscation" of such ill-gotten property be not frustrated, the power and jurisdiction to order confiscation being vested in the Special Court. As would be seen at length in later part of this judgment, the provisions for attachment (followed by adjudication) leading to confiscation are sanctions in addition to the criminal sanction rendering the act of "money laundering" a penal offence (by virtue of section 4). The order of "confiscation" of property attached under PMLA takes away the right and title of its owner and vests it "absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances" (Section 9).

3. The appeals at hand relate to claims of entities other than the persons in whose name the attached properties are held - to be referred hereinafter as "third party" - such claims of the third party emanating from charge, lien or encumbrances legitimately created. To put it simply, the conflict meriting resolve here concerns the sovereign authority of the State to take away and confiscate the property which has been acquired by a person through criminal activity as against the lawful claim of a third party to reach out to such property to recover, in accordance with law, what is due by attachment and sale of same very property.

4. Bearing in mind the above, the learned counsel on both sides of the divide in these matters repeatedly submitted that the issues presently brought for adjudication are not adversarial in nature, in that both sides concededly have been given certain authority by law to reach out to the properties in question for their respective purposes, the challenge essentially being to prioritize the claims of one over the other. The appellate tribunal (as constituted under PMLA), by its impugned orders, has taken the view that the relevant statutory provisions of PMLA take a back seat, the enactments under which the third parties (the banks) lay a superior claim over the properties in question having primacy. The appellant assails the said view questioning the correctness of the logic and reasoning by which the appellate tribunal has so concluded arguing that if the decision of the tribunal were to prevail it would not only be prone to misuse but also render PMLA toothless.

THE FACTS

5. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to take note of the background facts in each case.

Crl. Appeal no. 143/2018 (the case of "Audi Car")

6. The dispute in the first captioned matter (Crl. A. 143/2018) stems from the conflict arising out of the attachment of car make Audi, model no.A-335TDI bearing registration no.DL-2C-AT-4920 ("the Audi car") of seventh respondent Rajeev Singh Kushwaha (the registered owner), by the enforcement officer under PMLA, as confirmed by the adjudicating authority, and the claim of the respondent bank ("Axis Bank") over the said Audi car on account of hypothecation in relation to the finance that had been provided by it for its acquisition by the said registered owner.

7. There is no dispute between the parties herein as to