FINAL ORDER

24.04.2024 FPA-PMLA-4721/JP/2022 &

FPA-PMLA-7060/JP/2023 By this appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act of 2002), the challenge is made to the order dated 25.05.2022 passedby the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3) of the Act of 2002. The order of aforesaid was passed on the Original Application No. 523/2021 to seek detention of the cash/documents/digital devices seized under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 vide Punchnama dated 05- 06.08.2021. 2. The detailed facts of the case have been narrated in the appeal, however, while arguing it, the learned counsel for the appellant sought lapse of the seizure in reference to Section 8(3) of the Act of 2002. It was submitted that the order of seizure can continue during investigation for a period not exceeding 365 days or the pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under the Act. Referring to the date of the order being 5/6.08.2021, it was submitted that till date the investigation has not been completed. No prosecution complaint has been filed despite the expiry of the period of more than 365 days from the date of seizure of the cash/documents/devices. Thus, in view of Section 8(3) of the Act of 2002, seizure cannot continue now, rather it has to be declared as lapsed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has made even a reference of the order issued under Sections 17 to 21 of the Act of 2002 to indicate that on seizure of the documents/cash/devices and theproperty, it has to be sent to the authority within a period of 30 days from the date of seizure with an application requesting for retention of such property and adjudication on the aforesaid would be madeby the Adjudicating Authority. It is further submitted that even from the date of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 25.05.2022, a period of more than 365 days has already expired and investigation has not yet been completed.

Thus, the seizure be declared as lapsed.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents has made a contest to the argument raised by the appellant. It is, however, admitted that the prosecution complaint after the investigation has not yet been submitted. A period of 365 days has already expired from the date of the impugned order. In absence of a prosecution complaint, the court proceedings relating to offence cannot be said to be pending. He, however, submitted that the matter involves serious allegations against the appellant.

5. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

6. A challenge to the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 25.05.2022 has been made on many grounds but during the pendency of the appeal, it was revealed that the investigation required to be completed within 365 days as per Section 8(3) of the Act has not yet been completed and thereby the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority cannot continue, rather deserves to be lapsed. For ready reference, Section 8(3) of the Act of

2002 is quoted hereunder:

“8. Adjudication- (1) and (2) x xx (3)Where the Adjudicating Authority decides under sub-section (2) that any property is involved in money-laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the attachment of the property made under sub-section (1) of section 5 or retention of property or [record seized or frozen under section 17 or section 18 and record a finding to that effect, whereupon such attachment or retention or freezing of the seized or frozen property]or record shall-

(a)continue during [investigation for a period not exceeding [three hundred and sixty-five days] or] the pendency of the proceedings relating to any [offence under this Act before a court or under the corresponding law of any other country, before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction outside India, as the case may be;

and]

(b) become final after an order of confiscation is passed under sub- section (5) or sub-section (7) of section 8 or section 58B or sub-

section (2A) of