Attachment under PMLA serves to secure proceeds pending trial; appeal dismissed for lack of merit.

JUDGMENT

The appellant is aggrieved by the order of attachment ordered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 passed on 07.01.2023. After recording the reasons, the adjudicating authority confirmed the said order on 30.06.2023. As provided under the Act, on 15.02.2023, the appellant filed a statutory appeal before the appellate tribunal, and the order of the adjudicating authority was confirmed by the Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal under Section 42 of the Act.

2. Heard Sri. Renjith B. Marar, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri. Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Sri. Renjith B. Marar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, pointed out that there was no necessity in the facts and circumstances of the case for ordering the revision of provisional order as confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal did not consider the case on merits. Alternatively, it is also contended that the appellant is entitled to maintain the appeal on any substantial question of law as well as the fact and thus this Court is empowered to go into the merits of the matter in order to see as to whether the order of attachment confirmed by the adjudicating authority is proper or not. It is further pointed out that the project in question has a larger area where certain Villas have already been sold to the buyers and they are in occupation and though the said properties are not under the order of attachment, the effect of the final order now passed is that the present occupants are now prevented from using the said properties. It is also pointed out that the adjudicating authority had not heard those buyers while confirming the order of attachment.

4. Per contra, Sri. Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that, as regards the claim of the appellant, the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate tribunal has concurrently found that materials relied on by the prosecution had clearly proved the requirement of attachment pending the trial. It is also pointed out that the trial of the case has already started, and it will be wholly inappropriate for this Court at this point of time to comment upon the merits of the matter which may affect both sides. It is further pointed out that as far as the buyers who are in occupation of the premises, the department has not proceeded against those properties, and the appellant cannot have any grievance so far as their properties are concerned and it is for them to raise their grievances as and when proceedings are initiated.

5. On consideration of the rival submissions raised across the Bar, this Court finds that in the nature of the pleadings and also the issues involved in the present appeal, this Court feels that it will not be expedient for this Court to enter into the merits of the respective contentions. The whole purpose of attachment in terms of Section 8 of the PLMA is to secure the proceeds of time during the pendency of trial. At any rate, the appellant is not prejudiced by any manner, because on conclusion of trial, it is exonerated, then necessarily the property will have to be released from attachment. At any rate, the confiscation of the property can only be on completion of the trial and, therefore, it is not expedient at this point of time to comment upon the merits of the case which will prejudice both sides in the trial

6. As regards the plea of the appellant that the occupants of the properties or the villas which has already been sold, not been permitted to use the same, this Court finds that the said issue does not arise for consideration in the present appeal since even going by the stand of the respondent that those pro