APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI FPA-PMLA-2554/DLI/2018 Shri Ravi Vishvanathan … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who Argued For the appellants : Mr. Jai Anant, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Adv.

For the respondent : Mr. Chandra Prakash, Adv.

CORAM SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

19.03.2025 Dictated by: RAJESH MALHOTRA Present appeal is filed under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Original Application No. 183/2018 whereby the record/material seized from the possession of the present appellant was permitted to be retained under Section 17 (4) of PMLA.

The details of the said documents and materials are as under:

I. The details of documents/digital devices recovered from Sh. Ravi Visvanathan from his residence during search on 16.02.2018 as under:

a. Sized loose sheets/documents -Page No. 1 to 119 b. Digital devices recovered and seized i. Mobile Samsung Galaxy Oh 7 ii. Mobile Moto G (Motorola)

iii. Moto C Plus (Motorola)

c. Details of seized hard disk and pen drive i. Internal hard disk of Laptop ii. Pen drive Black-8GB d. Laptop HP Notebook

2. As per the facts of the case FIR was registered by CBI/EOU.IV/EO- II, New Delhi, vide No. RC2202017 E 0011 dated 15.05.2017 against M/s INX Media (P) Ltd. through Ms. Indrani Mukerjea & Others. M/s INX News Pvt. Ltd. through Mr. Pratim Mukerjea @ Peter Mukerjea & Others, Mr. Karti P. Chidambaram, M/s Chess Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (CMSPL). M/s Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (ASCPL) & Others for commission of offence punishable u/s 120-B r/w 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 8, 13(2) & 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, The Directorate of Enforcement recorded ECIR/7/HIU/2017 dated 18.05.2017 and initiated investigation into the case under PMLA, 2002.

During the investigation, search was conducted by ED at the residential premises of the respondent on 16.02.2018 as there was reason to believe that search will lead to recovery of incriminating material related to the investigation. After search and seizure, ED filed Original Application No. 183/2018 for permission to retain the same, till conclusion of investigation.

The Adjudicating authority after going through the allegations mentioned in the OA and relied upon documents, issued the notice to the defendant (herein appellant). After receiving the reply and hearing the rival submissions, the Adjudicating Authority, vide order dated

01.08.2018 permitted the ED, to retain the said seized material.

Aggrieved by the said order appellant filed the present appeal.

3. During the arguments Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no reason to believe with the Adjudicating Authority for permitting the ED to retain the said documents/seized material in absence of anything on record to show that the said documents/material was involved in money laundering or to prove the said allegations. He contended that, even ED was not having any reason to believe to conduct the search and seizure of the documents/seized material. She further pointed out that no prosecution complaint is filed against the appellant till date, nor the seized documents/material is relied upon in any criminal trial. Prayer is accordingly made to allow the present appeal.

4. Ld. counsel for the respondent strongly opposes the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and stressed that bare perusal of impugned order and the original application point towards the direction that there was reasonable belief for effecting the seizure and its confirmation by the ED and thereafter by the Adjudicating Authority. He further pointed out that the said seized documents/material will be required for further investigation of the case, however he is not aware whether the said material is relied upon b