Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
NELSON SAILO, J.
Zoramthari – Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement and Others – Respondents
W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 4, 5 of 2022, I.A. (Crl.) No. 16 of 2023
Decided On : 27-04-2023
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002- Section 20(1) - Bank Accounts frozen - Confirmation Order – Challenged- Petitioners contend that since Bank Accounts of petitioners were frozen by Freezing Orders dated and authority having submitted the original application to Adjudicating Authority in terms of Section 17(4) of Act of 2002, same ought to have been confirmed or otherwise within stipulated time of 180 days - As per Adjudicating Authority itself in its Confirmation Order, limitation period of passing the order expired and adjudicating authority, having become functus officio could not have passed Confirmation Order – Held, Court in taking up issue as Issue No. 2 has decided that Confirmation Order, having been passed beyond stipulated period of 180 days, same is not sustainable in law - Extension of limitation period as provided for by Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto W.P. (C) No. will not apply to present case for extension of limitation period for passing Confirmation Order under Act of 2002. Since issue has already been decided, Judgment and Order dated passed shall cover the present case as well - Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of as allowed.
JUDGMENT :
NELSON SAILO, J.
1. Heard Mr. Prashant Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Also heard Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned counsel for respondent No. 7. None appears for the remaining respondents despite notice.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Confirmation Order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Act of 2002). According to the petitioners, the Confirmation Order has to be passed by the Adjudicating Authority beyond the period of 180 days in violation of the stipulation in Section 20(1) of the Act of 2002.
3. The petitioners contend that since the Bank Accounts of the petitioners were frozen by Freezing Orders dated 09.02.2022 and 10.02.2022 and thereafter, the authority having submitted the original application to the Adjudicating Authority in terms of Section 17(4) of the Act of 2002, the same ought to have been confirmed or otherwise within the stipulated time of 180 days. As per the Adjudicating Authority itself in its Confirmation Order, the limitation period of passing the order expired on 07.08.2022 and therefore, the adjudicating authority, having become functus officio could not have passed the Confirmation Order dated 22.08.2022.
4. The details of the Bank Accounts of the petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) No. 4/2022 is as follows:
| S. No. | Bank Name | A/C Holder Name | A/C Number |
| 1. | Mizoram Rural Bank (respondent No. 4) | Zoramthari | 97004421470 |
| 2. | Mizoram Rural Bank (respondent No. 4) | Thari Enterprises | 97005917840 |
| 3. | IndusInd Bank (respondent No. 5) | Zoramthari | 100007593687 |
| 4. | IndusInd Bank (respondent No. 5) | Thari Enterprises | 259862687062 |
| 5. | IDBI Bank (respondent No. 6) | Thari Enterprises | 159104000070391 |
| 6. | HDFC Bank (respondent No. 7) | Thari Enterprises | 50200044008832 |
5. The details of the Bank Accounts of the petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) No. 5/2022 is as follows:
| S. No. | Bank Name | A/C Holder Name | A/C Number |
| 1. | Mizoram Rural Bank (respondent No. 4) | Lalrinhlua | 97007890438 |
| 2. | Mizoram Rural Bank (respondent No. 4) | LRH Enterprises | 97012014283 |
6. The above issue raised in the present 2 (two) writ petitions have been considered in W.P. (Crl.) No. 2/2022 and W.P. (Crl.) No. 3/2022. This Court in taking up the issue as Issue No. 2 has decided that the Confirmation Order, having been passed beyond the stipulated period of 180 days, the same is not sustainable in law. Further, the extension of limitation period as provided for by the Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto W.P. (C) No. 3/2020 will not apply to the present case for extension of the limitation period for passing the Confirmation Order under the Act of 2002. Since the issue has already been decided, the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2023 passed in W.P. (Crl.) No. 2/2022 and W.P. (Crl.) No. 3/2022 shall cover the present case as well. Accordingly, the impugned Freezing Order and the Confirmation Order in so far as the Bank Accounts of the petitioners as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs are concerned are hereby set aside.
7. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of as allowed. No cost.
Adjudicating authority is empowered by virtue of Section 20(1) of Act of 2002 to direct continuation of freezing of Bank Account.
Court held that actions of the Enforcement Directorate were not legally sustainable post-appellate tribunal's decision.
The governing money laundering statute holds overriding effect, mandating that financial institutions transfer frozen funds to authorized federal agencies upon the confirmation of attachment orders, ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the powers conferred by Section 17 on the Enforcement Directorate and the distinction between Section 132 of the Income-ta....
Point of law: powers of judicial review are limited and while exercising such power the Court has to see whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is malafideor is intended to fav....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
