Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether prior notice was required before passing the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 could be applied to the alleged pre-enactment conduct and property acquired earlier; (iii) Whether provisional attachment could be challenged for want of a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in the face of the earlier writ dismissal.
Issue (i): Whether prior notice was required before passing the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 5(1) permits provisional attachment on the basis of recorded reasons where the competent authority believes that the property represents proceeds of crime and is likely to be concealed, transferred, or dealt with so as to frustrate confiscation proceedings. The provision does not mandate issuance of notice before attachment, particularly where immediate attachment is necessary to prevent dissipation of the property.
Conclusion: Prior notice was not required, and the challenge on that ground failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 could be applied to the alleged pre-enactment conduct and property acquired earlier.
Analysis: The Court distinguished between punishment for the offence of money-laundering and the preventive and confiscatory nature of attachment of proceeds of crime. Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India prohibits ex post facto penal conviction and greater punishment, but does not bar attachment and confiscation measures aimed at proceeds of crime. The second proviso to Section 5(1), as applied by the Court, was treated as extending to property acquired before the Act came into force.
Conclusion: The Act was held applicable to the attachment proceedings, and the plea of impermissible retrospective operation failed.
Issue (iii): Whether provisional attachment could be challenged for want of a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in the face of the earlier writ dismissal.
Analysis: The Court held that the first proviso to Section 5(1) concerns the stage of final attachment and does not bar provisional attachment at the investigation stage. It also noted that the earlier writ petitions challenging the attachment order had already been dismissed and had attained finality, operating as constructive res judicata against reopening the same dispute in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Conclusion: The objection based on Section 173 and the earlier writ proceedings was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The criminal original petition was found to be devoid of merit, and the provisional attachment proceedings were left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is a preventive measure that may be ordered without prior notice where the statutory conditions are satisfied, and such attachment proceedings are not barred by Article 20(1) merely because the alleged property or predicate conduct predates the Act; a prior final decision on the same attachment issue also precludes :agitation of the matter.