Court Upholds Provisional Attachment Order Against Sons of Individual Under Investigation

The court found no violation of natural justice in passing the provisional attachment order against the petitioners, sons of an individual under investigation for scheduled offenses. Emphasizing compliance with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the court deemed the attachment a preventive measure against property concealment. The petitioners were granted a hearing before the order issuance and could contest the attachment's validity during adjudication. The court dismissed the writ petition, refraining from assessing the case's merits, directing any challenges to the competent authority during adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Violation of natural justice in passing provisional attachment order

Issue Analysis:
The petitioners, sons of an individual against whom an FIR has been registered for scheduled offenses, were served notices by the Directorate of Enforcement to show cause why provisional attachment should not be made regarding the proceeds of crime found in their possession. The petitioners argued that they were not given another opportunity of hearing before the provisional attachment order was passed, alleging a violation of natural justice. However, the court found no violation upon perusal of the impugned order. It was noted that the petitioners were indeed given an opportunity before the provisional attachment order was passed. The court emphasized that the provisional attachment was in accordance with Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and was initiated after the registration of complaints for scheduled offenses. The court highlighted that the provisional attachment was a preventive measure to avoid transfer or concealment of properties believed to be proceeds of crime. The court concluded that if the petitioners had merits to challenge, they could do so during the adjudication proceedings to prove that the properties were not proceeds of crime. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's merit, dismissing the writ petition for lack of merits.

Conclusion:
The court, after thorough consideration, found no violation of natural justice in passing the provisional attachment order against the petitioners. The court emphasized that the order was in conformity with the relevant legal provisions and was a preventive measure against potential transfer or concealment of properties believed to be proceeds of crime. The petitioners were given an opportunity before the order was passed, and they could challenge the attachment during the adjudication proceedings. The court dismissed the writ petition, refraining from expressing any opinion on the case's merit, leaving it for adjudication by the competent authority.

---