FINAL ORDER

03.12.2024 The appeal has been preferred under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short ‘the Act of 2002’) against the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the order of provisional attachment dated 16.09.2019 arising out of PAO No. 08/2019.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that he need not press the appeal against the attachment of the property if possession of the property is not taken till conclusion of the trial The release of property may be kept subject to the outcome of the trial and as per Section 8(6) to 8(8) of the Act of 2002.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the attachment of the property and its confirmation are not questioned rather appellant is not pressing the appeal to question those orders, and wouldbe satisfied only if the possession is not taken, this Tribunal may pass anappropriate order on the possession,if it lies with the appellant but he should not either alienate nor transfer it during the pendency of the trial in the criminal case.

4. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The appeal has been preferred to challenge the provisional attachment order and its confirmation by the impugned order dated 03.03.2020. The counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that his client is not inclined to press the appeal for challenge to the impugned orders if the possession of the property is not taken and accordingly prayer is made that subject to the outcome of the trial in pursuance to ECIR, the attached property may be dealt with as per Section 8(6) to 8(8) of the Act of 2002.

5. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay MadanlalChoudhary and Others v. Union of India &Ors. reported in (2022) SCC Online 929, the possession can be taken under an exceptional case. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of without causing interference in the provisional attachment order so also the order of its confirmation. The parties would, however, maintain status-quo in regard to the property as is existingtoday. The appellant would otherwise not alienate or transfer the property till conclusion of the trial. Subject to the outcome of the trial, and Section 8(6) to 8(8) of the Act of 2002, this order would be governed.

6. It is made clear that this order would not be taken adverse to the appellant and any observation in the impugned orders would not be binding on the trial court rather it would pass the order independently and based on the evidence led before it.

7. The respondent would,however,be at liberty to file an application in disposed of appealto seek possession if a case of exceptional nature is made out.

8. With the aforesaid, this appeal is disposed of.

(Rajesh Malhotra) (V. Anandarajan)

Member Member New Delhi, 03rd December, 2024 ‘J’