Constructive possession under PMLA limits immediate eviction after attachment confirmation, preserving lawful occupants' property rights.

Provisional attachment under the PMLA did not fail for want of notice or hearing, because the adjudication record showed service of notice, repeated adjournments, substituted service and appearance through counsel, while the petitioners remained absent despite opportunity. On Section 8(4), the HC construed "possession" harmoniously with the statutory scheme and Article 300-A to mean legal or constructive possession, not immediate physical eviction after confirmation of attachment. Actual physical possession could not be taken merely on confirmation; the properties were to remain under constructive control pending confiscation and criminal proceedings, and the occupants were restored to possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the provisional attachment and confirmation orders were vitiated for want of notice and opportunity of hearing; (ii) Whether Section 8(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 permits taking actual physical possession immediately after confirmation of attachment, or only constructive possession.

Issue (i): Whether the provisional attachment and confirmation orders were vitiated for want of notice and opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The provisional attachment under Section 5(1) is only an interim measure and does not require prior hearing. In the adjudication proceedings, notice was served, adjournments were granted on more than one occasion, and the petitioners failed to participate despite opportunities. The record also showed substituted service and subsequent appearance through counsel. In these circumstances, the plea of violation of natural justice could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The challenge based on absence of notice and denial of hearing failed.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 8(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 permits taking actual physical possession immediately after confirmation of attachment, or only constructive possession.

Analysis: The statutory scheme contemplates three distinct stages: provisional attachment under Section 5(1), confirmation under Section 8(3), and final confiscation after conviction. Reading Section 8(4) with Sections 8(5), 8(6), 9 and 10, and in the light of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the expression "possession" was construed so as to avoid unconstitutional deprivation of residential occupants, family members, tenants and other lawful occupants before confiscation. The Court held that the provision should be harmonised by treating possession as legal or constructive possession, not immediate physical eviction.

Conclusion: The respondents were not entitled to take actual physical possession merely on confirmation of attachment; only constructive possession could be retained.

Final Conclusion: The attachment and confirmation orders were upheld, but the direction to take actual physical possession was set aside, and the petitioners were directed to be put back in possession while the properties remained under legal and constructive control pending the criminal and confiscation proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A provision for possession under Section 8(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 must be construed as constructive possession, not immediate physical dispossession, where such a reading alone preserves the statutory scheme and constitutional property rights.

---