2021 Supreme(Guj) 54

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.
Nitin Hasmukhlal Shah - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 9946 of 2020
Decided on : 11-01-2021

Point of Law: Section 8 of the PML Act would come into play once the action is taken under Section 17. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 provides that on receipt of complaint, inter alia, under sub-section (4) of Section 17, if the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe that any person has committed an offence under Section 3 or is in possession of proceeds of crime, he may serve a notice of not less than 30 days on such person calling upon him to indicate the sources of his income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached under section 17 or other provisions as the case may be, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties should not be declared to be the properties involved in money-laundering. Subsection (2) empowers the Adjudicating Authority to consider the reply, if any, to the notice issued under sub-section (1) and after hearing the aggrieved person, and taking into account all the relevant material may pass an order to record a finding as regards the properties being involved in money laundering. Sub-section (3) further empowers the Adjudicating Authority to decide that any property is involved in money laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the freezing of the property made under Section 17 and record a finding to that effect.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Money-Laundering - Pray for Direction to Quash the Letter and Panchnama - Direction to Respondent Release and Return all Savings and Belongings Seized/withdrawn - Petitioners Seek to Challenge the Proceedings - Petitioner No.1 was purchasing such Mop from various cooperative agencies permitted to sell the same - It then repacked same in smaller packs and labeled it as “Industrial Salt with Silica Gel” which was then supplied - Officers of the Directorate of Revenue, Customs Department had conducted investigations which resulted into an adjudication proceeding before Commissioner of Customs - Petitioner No.1 was penalised under against which, appeal filed by the petitioner No.1 is pending before CESTAT - Petitioner No.1, certain officers of the Enforcement Department raided office and residential premises of petitioner No.1 suggesting enquiries against him under provisions of PML Act. On very same day, officers sought to record statement of the petitioner No.1 for the alleged transactions and for which, officers obtained entire bank, savings and property details of all the petitioners - It is the case of the petitioners that upon drawing the panchnama, the Assistant Director issued a letter, intimating petitioners not to part with any of noted bank accounts, properties and insurance policies named therein, without prior sanction and further not to withdraw, renew or deal with same in any manner without prior permission of respondent No.2, present petition with aforementioned prayers –

Finding of the Court:

evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties should not be declared to be the properties involved in money-laundering. Subsection (2) empowers the Adjudicating Authority to consider the reply, if any, to the notice issued under sub-section (1) and after hearing the aggrieved person, and taking into account all the relevant material may pass an order to record a finding as regards the properties being involved in money laundering. Sub-section (3) further empowers the Adjudicating Authority to decide that any property is involved in money laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the freezing of the property made under Section 17 and record a finding to that effect - reading provisions of Section 17 in juxtaposition with the provisions of Section 8 read with further provisions of Sections 26 and 42, an alternative efficacious remedy has been provided to the aggrieved person. PML Act, therefore, is a Code unto itself - In view of the effective alternative efficacious remedy available to persons aggrieved so also considering the object of enacting the PML Act and the principle enunciated by this court, this court would be loath to exercise its extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India –

Result: Petition Dismissed