The absence of recorded reasons prior to issuing a provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act renders the order invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. V. A. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India. I have also heard Mrs. A. Gayan, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the Provisional Attachment Order No.01/2020 dated 24.06.2020 (for short “the impugned order”) whereby the Respondent No.2 in exercise of the powers under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “the Act of 2002”) had provisionally attached the 3 (three) properties mentioned in the Schedule to the impugned order.

3. Before dealing with the legality and validity of the said impugned order, this Court would like to deal with the facts involved which would have material bearing on the decision.

4. From a perusal of the writ petition, it reveals that one Kuruna Bordoloi, APS, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam lodged a First Information Report on 12.02.2018 stating inter alia that an enquiry was initiated at the Directorate of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam against the Petitioner No.1 on the basis of a complaint regarding accumulation of assets disproportionate to his known source of income.

Upon completion of enquiry, it revealed that the estimated disproportionate assets acquired/possessed by the Petitioner No.1 was to the tune of Rs.1,42,59,064/-. Upon receipt of the said First Information Report dated 12.02.2018, the Officer-in-Charge, ACB Police Station cum Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam registered a case being ACB Police Station Case No.02/2018 under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) and started the investigation of the case. Taking into account that the provisions of Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 were Scheduled Offences under Paragraph No.8 of Part-A of the Act of 2002, ECIR No.01/GWZO/2018 dated 12.02.2018 was recorded and the investigation against the Petitioner No.1 was initiated under the Act of 2002.

5. From the averments made in the writ petition, it reveals that during the investigation made under the provisions of the Act of 2002, the details of the properties held by both the Petitioners and the bank details of both the Petitioners were collected. Further to that, summons were also issued to both the Petitioners as well as their son namely Shri Arkish Aftab. The statements were duly recorded under Section 50 of the Act of 2002. Subsequent thereto, the impugned order was passed whereby three of the properties of the Petitioners were attached. The details of the said properties having relevance to the instant dispute is quoted herein below:

6. Pursuant to the impugned order, a corrigendum was issued on 29.07.2020 by the Respondent No.2 thereby substituting t