High Court upholds PMLA provisional attachment order, emphasizes appellate process over direct relief

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashment of the order confirming provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioners argued a jurisdictional error by the Adjudicating Authority. The case also involved the interpretation of the statutory limitation period under the PMLA, with the Adjudicating Authority justifying an extension due to COVID-19. The Court emphasized the need to follow the prescribed appellate process and approach the Appellate Tribunal for addressing jurisdictional errors, rather than seeking direct relief from the High Court.

---

---

Issues:
1. Seeking quashment of the order confirming provisional attachment
2. Interpretation of statutory limitation period under PML Act
3. Jurisdictional error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority

Issue 1: Seeking quashment of the order confirming provisional attachment
The writ petition was filed to quash the order confirming the provisional attachment of properties under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The case originated from a FIR registered by the CBI against certain individuals and a company for offenses under IPC. Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate initiated an investigation under the PMLA based on the scheduled offense disclosed in the FIR. The Deputy Director of Enforcement passed a provisional order of attachment, followed by a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority, which confirmed the attachment order. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that the Adjudicating Authority's decision was flawed due to a jurisdictional error.

Issue 2: Interpretation of statutory limitation period under PML Act
A crucial aspect of the case revolved around the interpretation of the statutory limitation period under the PMLA. The petitioners contended that the provisional attachment order, issued on 01.02.2022, should have lapsed after 180 days, expiring on 30.07.2022. However, the Adjudicating Authority justified its decision by citing orders from the Supreme Court that extended the limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Enforcement Directorate argued that the statutory limitation period automatically extended based on the Supreme Court's orders, contrary to the petitioner's assertion that the Adjudicating Authority violated the mandate of the PML Act.

Issue 3: Jurisdictional error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority
During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel referred to a Supreme Court judgment to support the contention that approaching the Appellate Tribunal might not be necessary in case of a jurisdictional error by the Adjudicating Authority. The counsel highlighted concerns regarding the right to liberty, self-incrimination, and due process under the PMLA, emphasizing the need to address jurisdictional errors promptly. However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that with the appointment of a Presiding Officer for the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners should approach the Tribunal to raise their arguments. The Court emphasized the availability of further appeals to the High Court under the PMLA, indicating that the petitioners should follow the prescribed appellate process rather than seeking relief directly from the High Court.

---