The court emphasized the importance of avoiding non-application of mind by the Adjudicating Authority and highlighted the availability of appellate remedies before the Appellate Tribunal (PMLA).

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner - State Bank of India has filed the present petition seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 22nd December, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA).

3. The case of the Petitioner is that it's case has not even been considered by the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) despite filing a detailed reply and explaining its position along with its documents and decisions relied upon. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) is passing template cut-paste orders and the same has been demonstrated to the Court by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner through a compilation of similar orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

4. The Court has also perused the same and it appears that at least in respect of portions of the orders relating to compliance under 5(1) and 8(1) of the PMLA, 2002, the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) is using identical paragraphs as is seen in several orders. As an illustration, two paragraphs are extracted below:

"OC-1474/2021 M/s Ispat Damodar Private Limited & Ors.

13. COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 5(1):

In the present case, in relation to the scheduled offences the charge sheet is not filed against the accused named. In view thereof the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorized by the Director for the purposes of section 5 of PMLA is empowered to issue an order of attachment of property in terms of second proviso under section 5(1) of PMLA. In the present case the Deputy Director has passed the PAOs on the reasonable belief that if property involved in money laundering is not attached immediately under Chapter-III of the Act, the non-attachment of the property is likely to frustrate proceeding under the Act. The empowerment to issue PAO is conditional to the formation of requisite reasonable belief, (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing, on the basis of material in his possession) that if property involved in money laundering is not attached immediately under Chapter-III of the Act, the non- attachment of the property is likely to frustrate proceeding under the Act.

In the present case there is no dispute as to the authority of the Deputy Director to pass the provisional attachment Order. While examining the compliance of section 5, what is required to be seen in the present case is that the Deputy Director has entertained the reasonable belief on the basis of material in his possession and secondly whether the reason for such belief are recorded in writing or not.

OC-1637/2022

5. COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 5(1):

In the present case, in relation to the scheduled offences the charge sheet is not filed against the accused named. In view thereof the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorized by the Director for the purposes of section 5 of PMLA is empowered to issue an order of attachment of property in terms of second proviso under section 5(1) of PMLA. In the present case the Deputy Director has passed the PAOs on the reasonable belief that if property involved in money laundering is not attached immediately under Chapter-III of the Act, the non-attachment of the property is likely to frustrate proceeding under the Act. The empowerment to issue PAO is conditional to the formation of requisite reasonable belief, (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing, on the basis of material in his possession) that if property involved in money laundering is not attached immediately under Chapter-III of the Act, the non- attachment of the property is likely to frustrate proceeding under the Act.

In the present case there is no dispute as to the authority of the Deputy Director to pass the provisional attachment Order. While examining the compliance of section 5, what is required to be seen in the present case is that the Deputy Director has entertained the reasonable belief on the basis of material in his posse