JUDGMENT :

A. PROLOGUE

1. These two writ petitions raise an important question relating to the powers of the Enforcement Directorate, ED to provisionally attach properties under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, The Act, even though no proceedings relating to the predicate offence may have been initiated by the competent agency functioning under an independent statute and in terms of which the scheduled offence stands created. The ancillary and yet equally fundamental issue which the Court is called upon to answer is whether the ED could be recognised to have the jurisdiction to enforce the measures contemplated in Section 5 of the Act solely upon it being of the opinion that the material gathered in the course of an investigation or enquiry evidences the commission of a predicate offence. The questions posited would also raise the ancillary issue of the powers that the ED could be recognised to derive from the Act while investigating an offence of money laundering.

2. The writ petitions principally assail the action taken by the ED which had proceeded to pass a Provisional Attachment Order, PAO/Provisional Attachment Order dated 29 November 2018. W.P.(C) 13361/2018 came to be instituted on or about 09 December 2018 and at a time when the petitioner was yet to be served with the PAO. The connected writ petition directly assails the order of 29 November 2018 noticed above. The proceedings drawn by the ED emanate from a First Information Report, FIR bearing RC No. 219 2014 E-0002 dated 26 March 2014 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, CBI and ECIR No. 3 of 2014 which came to be lodged on 29 December 2014 by the respondent. During the pendency of the instant writ petitions, ED also proceeded to file a separate complaint referable to Section 45 of the Act and on which further investigation is still stated to be continuing. Similar is the position insofar as the ECIR is concerned.

3. Turning firstly to the proceedings on the FIR registered at the behest of the CBI, the record would bear out that a Closure Report was submitted before the competent court on 30 August 2014. A protest petition came to be filed by the complainants thereafter on 02 November 2016. Upon the aforesaid protest petition coming to be filed, a prayer was made before the competent court for CBI being accorded permission to conduct further investigation. On the conclusion of that investigation, a chargesheet came to be filled before the competent court on 17 November 2021 against the petitioner and other named accused. The competent court took cognizance on the aforesaid chargesheet in terms of its order of 31 January 2022 and issued summons against the named accused.

4. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner by way of S.L.P (CRL.) Nos. 656–657/2022 and 3360/2022. On the aforenoted Special Leave Petitions, interim orders came to be passed on 06 and 09 May 2022 respectively staying further proceedings before the Special Judge. Those interim orders continue to operate.

5. Insofar as the ECIR is concerned, the Special Judge has in its order of 22 October 2022 noted that as per the ED further time was required to complete investigation. Awaiting a report on conclusion of further in