IMPORTANT POINT
The provisions of Section 14(1) of the BUDS Act exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, meaning that any delay in filing for confirmation of attachment beyond the specified period cannot be condoned.

JUDGMENT :

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019. The appellants challenge Annexure A9 order of the Special Court, Thrissur. As per the impugned order, a petition filed by the respondent-Competent Authority seeking to confirm the provisional order of attachment and permission to sell the attached properties of the 1st appellant-company was allowed. The petitions filed by the appellants seeking to release the properties from attachment and allow them to reopen the supermarket in question were dismissed. The appellants challenge the said common orders both on legal and factual grounds.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Special Government Pleader.

3. The 1st appellant is a private limited company and appellants No. 2 and 3 are its Managing Director and Director respectively. The 1st appellant was conducting a supermarket and online business under the name and style Highrich Online Shoppe Pvt.Ltd. It was conducting a deposit scheme also under the guise of trading of grocery products, personal care, etc. Following the allegation that the said scheme was violative of the provisions of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (PCMCS Act), Crime No. 1070 of 2023 was registered in Cherpu Police Station. Annexure A2 is a copy of the F.I.R.

4. The appellants collected a huge sum of money through the said business. They therefore allegedly had committed the offences punishable also under Sections 3 r/w 21, 4 r/w 22, 5 and 6 r/w 23 of the BUDS Act. The respondents allege that the appellants illegally had collected an amount of more than Rs.3000 crores and they laundered that money. Following registration of such a crime, the Competent Authority under the BUDS Act ordered under Section 7(3) of the BUDS Act provisional attachment of all the movable and immovable properties of the appellants. Annexure A3 is the copy of the order.

5. The 2nd respondent District Collector, Thrissur submitted Crl.M.P.No. 2460 of 2024 before the Special Court under Sections 14(1) and 15 of the BUDS Act seeking confirmation of the order of attachment and permission to sell the attached properties. There was a delay of 71 days in filing that petition. Therefore, the 2nd respondent, through the Public Prosecutor filed Crl.M.P.No. 2514 of 2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay. The appellants filed objections to both the said petitions. It was contended that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable and the delay was not liable to be condoned. The procedural irregularities and lack of reasons in the order of attachment were pointed out to defend the plea for confirmation of the attachment and permission for sale.

6. In the meantime, the appellants filed Crl.M.P.No. 2390 of 2024 with a prayer to lift the attachment ordered by the Competent Authority in terms of Annexure A3. They also filed Crl.M.P.No. 2392 of 2024 claiming a relief that they be allowed to reopen the supermarket on the premises that it was necessary for protecting the interest of the customer. The respondents filed objections to both those petitions.

7. The Special Court considered all those petitions together and passed the impugned common order. Holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable, the delay was condoned. The Special Court also found that the appellants collected money from the customers in violation of the restrictive provisions contained in the BUDS Act and the appellants siphoned off the money so collected. Accordingly, it was held that the attachment ordered by the Competent Authority was for sufficient reasons and permission to sell the attached properties was liable to be granted. Apropos that order the petition filed by the appellants for lifting the attachment and permission to reopen the supermarket were dismissed.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit at the outset that no applicatio