The main legal point established in the judgment is the appealability of the Adjudicating Authority's order rejecting the right to cross-examination and the interpretation of 'an order under this Act' as per the PMLA and the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Appeal) Rules, 2005.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh,J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 13th December, 2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA), by which the application of the Petitioner - Dr. U.S. Awasthi seeking permission to cross-examine the three persons, namely, Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Sh. Amarendra Dhari Singh @ A.D. Singh, and Sh. Sushil Kumar Pachisia, has been rejected with the following observations:

"12. Moreover, when a person is charged with serious offences of money-laundering affecting the financial status of the nation, cannot be heard to complain about violation of principles of natural justice on the basis of own self-serving perception that he/she being victimized by State action. If such complaint is to be taken note of at every stage of action taken by the authorities concerned, it will not sub serve the due process of law set in motion against the alleged offenders under the statute. It is always open the accused of the alleged offenders to make more noise about the so-called violation of principles of natural justice and such noise can be heard quite often in these type of matters with a view to drag the proceedings and scuttle the efforts of the authorities concerned to pin down the offenders to the crime in furtherance of the provisions of the Act. Ultimately it boils down to the fact that interference by this Authority on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice at every stage for the asking, would ultimately end in stifling the efforts of the authorities in implementing the provisions of the PMLA for which it is enacted.

13. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I am of the view that no meaningful purpose will be served by cross examination of the persons sought and the request is not acceded to for the reasons discussed in the preceding paras.

3. The brief background of the matter is that the Central Bureau of Investigation registered FIR being RC no. 221/2021/E/0009 dated 17th May, 2021 against the Petitioner. The said RC also contained certain scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter `PMLA'). The ECIR bearing No. ECIR/DLZ0-1/43/2021 dated 20th May, 2021 was, thereafter, registered by Respondent no. 2 - Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter `ED') and investigation under the PMLA was commenced. A provisional attachment order No.15/2022 was issued by the ED on 22nd September, 2022, wherein investment to the tune of Rs.42,15,01,623/- of the Petitioner and investment to the tune of Rs.8,80,17,793/- of the Petitioner's spouse were provisionally attached as `proceeds of crime'. A show cause notice dated 25th October, 2022 was, thereafter, issued under Section 8(1) of the PMLA. At that stage, the Petitioner filed the application dated 25th November, 2022 seeking right to cross-examine the above-mentioned witnesses.

4. The premise on which the application has been filed is that under Section 11 of the PMLA, the Adjudicating Authority has to mandatorily adhere to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter `CPC'), and hence, grant the Petitioner the right to cross-examination. The said application has been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order dated 13th December, 2022, and the operative portion of the same has been extracted hereinabove.

5. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the concept of cross-examination is not alien to PMLA proceedings. The Petitioner has filed the application on 25th November, 2022 at the initial stage itself, within a month of the issuance of the show cause notice dated 25th October, 2022. Thus, it is not the intention of the Petitioner to, in any manner, delay the proceedings. In proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, it cannot be argued that cross-examination would not be permitted in any manner. He has further argued that there has been a retraction b