JUDGMENT

Instant petition has been filed by the above named petitioner challenging the provisional attachment order bearing No.ECIR/04/ SRZO/2011/360 dated 27.05.2020 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the complaint bearing No.1308 of 2020 and the notice to show cause dated 20.07.2020 issued under Section 8 of the Act.

2) The case of the petitioner is that he was doing a legal cross border trade for a brief spell in the year 2009 in accordance with the rules holding the field. It is alleged that the police without any justification and cause have implicated the petitioner in a frivolous case on the basis of a disclosure statement made by one Mushfiq Ahmad Lone in FIR No.254 /2009 for offences under Section 120, 120-B, 121, 121/A RPC and 11, 18, 20 and 40A of ULA(P) Act of Police Station, Saddar, Srinagar. It is averred that in the FIR it is alleged that an amount of Rs.13,85,000/ has been seized from other accused persons but the petitioner is not involved in the case.

3) It is further averred by the petitioner that as a sequel to the aforementioned FIR, the respondent No.2 has issued the impugned provisional attachment order under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the act and thereafter filed the impugned complaint before the Chairperson, Adjudicating Authority.

4) It is contended that the petitioner is already facing trial in respect of the allegations made in the FIR which has culminated in final report pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (TADA/POTA), Srinagar, wherein charges have been framed against the accused including the petitioner in terms of order dated 24.10.2019 of the said Court.

5) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of provisional attachment, the complaint and the show cause notice on the following grounds:

a. That the impugned provisional attachment order, complaint and show cause notice are violating the fundamental and other Constitutional rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

b) That the petitioner is already facing trial before the Designated Special Court (Additional District & Sessions Judge TADA/POTA), Srinagar, and the new proceedings initiated by the respondents for the same alleged offence amounts to double jeopardy which is not permitted under the Constitution of India.

c) That admittedly not a single penny has been seized from the possession of the petitioner, as such, he has been falsely implicated in the case and that no proceedings under the Act could be initiated against the petitioner.

d) That the respondents have miserably failed to point out that the petitioner has owned any property out of the proceeds of any crime of whatsoever nature which is the basic requirement of any attachment order issued under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, or any other proceedings initiated there under.

e) That the impugned proceedings/complaint is of the year 2011 and the respondents since then were in deep slumber. However, immediately, after passing of order by the trial court in FIR No.254 of the year 2009 under Sections 120, 120-B, 121, 121/A RPC & 11, 18, 20,40 A of ULA(P) Act P/S Saddar Srinagar, the respondents woke up and in a very hush hush manner passed the provisional attachment order and as a consequence thereof filed a frivolous complaint before the respondent No.3 who in turn issued the impugned show cause notice against the petitioner which is in clear violation of the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

f) That before issuing impugned provisional attachment order, the respondent no.2 was duty bound to satisfy the requirements of Section 5 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 2002 which the respondent no.2 has miserably failed to do.

g) That the impugned show cause notice is vague, cryptic, unfounded and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the same has been issued without application of mind.

h) That the only