The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time limit prescribed under section 42 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 is absolute and cannot be extended by invoking section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court emphasized the importance of the satisfaction of sufficient cause based on the materials available on record and the need to provide reasons for such satisfaction.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Sahoo, J. - The appellant/petitioner Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar has filed this interim application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of seventy five days in preferring the Criminal Appeal under section 42 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as PML Act) challenging the order dated 06.05.2019 passed by the Chairman, Appellate Tribunal, PML Act, New Delhi whereby the Appellate Tribunal set aside the order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PML Act, New Delhi in O.A. 29 of 2015.

2. This interim application for condonation of delay has been filed basically on the ground that after receiving the copy of the impugned order dated 06.05.2019 of the Appellate Tribunal on 31.05.2019, decision to prefer an appeal before this Court was taken by the competent authority of the petitioner and in that respect, permission was sought for from the Headquarters of the Enforcement Director, New Delhi and due to procedural formalities, there has been delay in presenting the appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation of sixty days as provided under section 42 of the PML Act. The delay caused is neither intentional nor wilful for which a lenient view should be taken in condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.

3. The respondent/opposite party Mr. Sarosh Yazdani has filed reply to the interim application for condonation of delay stating, inter alia, that the Appellate Tribunal passed the order on 06.05.2019, which was communicated to both the parties on the same day and the present appeal was filed on 18.09.2019, which was after 135 days and thus, it is barred by law of limitation as provided under section 42 of PML Act. The interim application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay is barred by section 71 of the PML Act as the latter overrides the inconsistent provisions in other laws for the time being in force. It is further stated that the averments made by the petitioner are not supported by any evidence qua the date of communication of the order dated 06.05.2019 passed by the Appellate Tribunal and mere mention of the term procedural delay cannot be considered as sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Court in terms of the proviso to section 42 of the PML Act and therefore, the interim application for condonation of delay is not maintainable and it also suffers from manifest illegality as envisaged under sections 42, 46, 65 and 71 of the 2002 Act.

4. An additional affidavit has been filed by the appellant/petitioner stating, inter alia, that though the learned Appellate Tribunal has ordered to communicate the impugned order dated 06.05.2019 by Dasti to both the parties, but the Registrar of the Appellate Tribunal by its letter served the copy of the order to the respondent/opposite party, his counsel and to the Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi even though the Joint Director, Directorate Enforcement, Bhubaneswar was the sole respondent before the Appellate Tribunal. It is further stated that the Registrar of the Appellate Tribunal has never served a copy of the impugned order upon the Joint Director, Directorate Enforcement, Bhubaneswar Zonal Office. It is further stated that the impugned order dated 06.05.2019 was forwarded by the office of the Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi to the Regional Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Eastern Region, Kolkota and Joint Director, Directorate Enforcement, Bhubaneswar Zonal Office vide letter dated 24.05.2019, which was received by the Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar Zonal Office on 07.06.2019 and that apart the scanned copy of the letter dated 09.05.2019 of the Registrar, Appellate Tribunal along with the copy of the impugned order has also been received from the Assistant Director, Link Cell, Office of the Regional Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Regional Office,