Non-application of mind by Adjudicating Authority in recording satisfaction under Section 5(1) of PMLA by referring to a different case warrants remand. Delay due to Covid-19 is excluded per Supreme Court orders, so objections under Sections 5(3) and 5(5) fail.

ORDER

24.09.2025

These appeals have been preferred to challenge the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 27.09.2021 ( in short ‘PAO’ ).

2. It is a case where an FIR No. 97/2014 was registered by the Belgharia Police Station, Kolkata on a complaint lodged by Shri Goutam Dutta alleging that he had invested a sum of 4,92,606/- with M/s I-Core E Service Ltd. in pursuance to their advertisement. It is with an assurance to return the money with high interest but neither the principal amount nor the interest was paid to the complainant, rather, amount was misappropriated, thus an FIR. Similar FIRs were registered one after another in different police stations.

3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant raised many legal issues for which we are not required to go deep in the facts of the case.

4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that the Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is without application of mind. The compliance of Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( in short “the Act of 2002” ) has been shown in reference to a company which is different than involved in these appeals. In view of the above, impugned order has been passed without application of mind, otherwise, there was no reason to make a reference of the case which has no nexus to the present matter. In the light of aforesaid, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

5. We have perused the impugned order and find substance in the argument of the Counsel for the appellant. In fact, reference of a case has been given which is other than the case in hand to record satisfaction of the Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002. It seems to be due to oversight, otherwise, the entire order makes a reference of the fact of the case and accordingly finding has been recorded. However, even if an order has been recorded by oversight, it needs to be addressed.

6. The matter could have been remanded back without referring to other legal issues. However, two other legal issue goes into the root of the case and are required to be addressed before a decision is taken for remand of the matter.

7. The first issue is regarding passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority after a period of 180 days from the date of the PAO. The PAO of the property was passed on 27.09.2021 while the impugned order was passed on 25.07.2022, beyond a period of 180 days. As per Section 5(3) of the Act of 2002, the PAO would cease to exist if it is not confirmed within 180 days. The prayer of the appellant was accordingly to set-aside of the impugned order on the strength of the argument aforesaid. The issue has to be dealt with because if it is decided in favour of the appellant then even first issue is not required to be addressed which may result in remand of the case and otherwise the legal argument raised for passing the impugned order beyond a period of 180 days would get frustrated. We would accordingly address the issue.

8.Another issue is regarding delay in sending the Original Complaint (‘OC’) to the Adjudicating Authority. It is submitted that the PAO was passed on 27.09.2021 while the OC was sent on 03.11.2021 i.e. beyond a period of 30 days given under Section 5 of the Act of 2002 and therefore even Section 5(5) of the Act has been offended. The issue again goes into the root of the case and needs to be addressed for the reason that if it is decided favourable to the appellant, the appeal may not result in remand of the case in reference to the first ground. However, in case of a decision goes against the appellant, the matter may be remanded to the authority below for passing an order afresh.

9.The appellant has even raised the issue that the property under provisional attachment was purchased prior to the commission of crime, thus, it cannot be said to be proceeds of crime. Another issue raised was in regard to Section 5(1)(b) of the Act of 2002. Both the issues would be taken up, if r