ORDER

30/11/2023

This appeal has been filed under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Act of 2002) to challenge an interim order passed by Adjudicating Authority on 29.09.2023. By the impugned order, four applications preferred by the appellant have been decided.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that thirteen F.I.Rs were registered in the year 2013 to 2020 by certain allottees of two separate residential projects undertaken by the company namely M/s IREO Private Limited and M/s IREO Fire River Private Limited. The appellant was not named in the FIR. The respondent, Enforcement Directorate recorded ECIR on 15.06.2021 in reference to those 13 FIRs, where also appellant was not named as an accused.

3. The prosecution complaint was also filed. The appellant was not shown to be an accused therein. However, in pursuance to the authorization under section 17 (1) of the Prevention Of Money Laundering Act, 2002, herein called Act officers of the Enforcement Directorate conducted search at several places. They seized several documents, records and the property of the appellant without verifying the source of acquisition of properties. The appellant accordingly filed a Criminal Writ Petition bearing no. 1751 of 2023 before Delhi High Court against the search operation and consequent seizure/ freezing of the properties. The said writ petition is still pending before the Delhi High Court.

4. The respondent ED filed an OA before the Adjudicating Authority to seek retention of records and properties seized from various premises and in pursuance to it, the Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause notice under section 8 (1) of the Act, 2002.

5. The respondent department in the meanwhile filed a supplementary prosecution complaint on 04.08.2023 naming the appellant as an accused for commission of the offence.

6. The appellant filed preliminary reply to the show cause notice. The appellant thereupon filed an application to seek inspection of records and liberty to file the reply. It was in reference to Regulation 16, 17 and 18 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulation, 2013. The appellant filed another application to seek cross examination of the witnesses. The third application was to seek a copy of the reasons to believe recorded in writing under section 17 and also under section 8 (1) of the Act of 2002. The fourth application was to challenge the constitution of Adjudicating Authority and accordingly to stay the proceedings till the authority is constituted as per the provisions of law. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed all the applications by the impugned order dated 29.09.2023.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has questioned the impugned order by maintaining four different appeals in reference to each application and accordingly we are deciding each appeal by this common order.

Appeal Number 6686/23 to Challenge the Order Dated 29.09.2023 To Deny Extension of Time For Filing Reply after Inspection Of Record

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while inspection of records was permitted by the Adjudicating Authority as per regulation 16 to 18 of the Regulation Act of 2013, the time was not extended for filing the reply.

9. In view of the above, the impugned order needs to be Interfered and accordingly appellant should be allowed to file reply to the show cause after inspection of record.

10. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and find that a prayer for inspection of record was pressed after filing reply. The Adjudicating Authority granted permission to apply for the inspection of record in „Form 7‟ and to inspect the record as per Regulation 16 to 18 of the Regulation of 2013. The extension of time for filing of reply was not allowed as the reply to show cause notice was already filed. We do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority.

11. If the record was required to be inspected before filing reply, prayer for