PMLA freezing powers upheld where account freeze was authorised under Section 17 and writ relief was refused.

Freezing of bank accounts during PMLA investigation was traced to the specific power under Section 17, which authorises search, seizure and freezing where seizure is not practicable on recorded reasons to believe. The Court held that Section 102 CrPC is not an independent source of power for freezing under this special statute, and any objection to continuation of the freezing order under Section 17(4) could be raised before the Adjudicating Authority. On the facts, writ interference was unwarranted and the freezing action was upheld, so de-freezing relief was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the freezing of bank accounts during investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was legally sustainable and whether the writ applicant was entitled to de-freezing relief.

Analysis: Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 specifically empowers the authorised officer, on the basis of information and recorded reasons to believe, to search, seize and, where seizure is not practicable, freeze property. Section 17(4) requires the authority freezing any property to seek continuation of the freezing order before the Adjudicating Authority within thirty days. Section 65 permits application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 only so far as it is not inconsistent with the Act. In that statutory scheme, freezing of bank accounts is traceable to the special provision in Section 17 and not to Section 102 of the Code as an independent source of power. The Court also held that any grievance regarding compliance with Section 17(4) could be urged before the Adjudicating Authority and did not warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The freezing action was upheld and the request for de-freezing was declined.

---