FINAL ORDER

24.02.2025 By this batch of appeals under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short ‘the Act of 2002), a challenge has been made to the order dated 03.04.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority to allow retention of the documents and digital devices seized during the search operation.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that subsequent to the seizure and retention of the documents/ digital devices, the prosecution complaint was filed by the respondent where most of the seized articles have been made part of the unrelied Upon document. The respondent were in process to release those articles but in the light of the order passed by the Special Court to supply copies of unrelied documents to the accused, the respondent preferred a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the Delhi High Court and is pending consideration. The respondent in their petition have stated about completion of the investigation and even to release the digital devices not relied by them in the prosecution complaint. The prayer is made to direct the respondent to release the documents/ digital devices not relied by them in the prosecution complaint.

The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the appellant. It is however admitted that the prosecution complaint has already been filed where certain articles have been kept in the category of unrelied upon documents. In the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed before the Delhi High Court, statement for release of digital devices not relied in the prosecution complaint was made and in fact the respondent were in process to release the digital devices/ documents which have not been relied upon by them but this could be given effect due to the Criminal Misc. Petition filed before Delhi High Court. Thus, the Tribunal may pass an appropriate order.

We have considered the rival submissions and find that subsequent to the order impugned herein, the respondent filed prosecution complaint where certain articles seized from the appellant have been categorized as unrelied upon documents. Those digital devices/ documents which have not been released by the respondent, there remains no reason not to release it rather we refer to the para 15 of Criminal Misc. Petition filed by the respondent where statement of fact for release of digital devices have been made. Para 15 of the Criminal Misc. Petition is quoted hereunder-

“15. In view of the above facts, it is submitted that in this case investigation has now been completed. Hence, this office cannot retain the seizure after completion of investigation as per the directions of the Ld. Adjudication Authority. Therefore, this office has taken the due approval of the Competent Authority and initiated the process to return the digital devices, which form a part of list of un-relied upon documents. The list of digital devices which have already been returned by this Directorate of Enforcement is herewith attached as ’ANNEXURE-P-23’. Further, this office was in the process of returning the remaining devices which was halted after the Ld Court’s order dated 09.10.2024.”

In the light of the facts given above, we find no justification for the respondent to retain digital devices/ articles which have not been relied by them in the prosecution complaint and accordingly they are ordered to release them and further retention is not allowed of those articles other than which have been relied by the respondent and made part of the prosecution complaint. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid.

(Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari)

Chairman (V. Anandarajan)

Member New Delhi, 24th February, 2025 ‘KA’