Mandatory Rule 7 compliance governs possession of attached PMLA property; unauthorised seizure without court leave is invalid.

Confirmed attachment of a vehicle under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, when the property is in custodia legis, could not be enforced by taking possession without first obtaining leave of the court. The mandatory procedure under Rule 7 of the 2013 Rules required the authorised officer to move the Special Court with the provisional attachment order and the confirmation order before possession could lawfully be taken. Because the respondent bypassed that procedure and did not inform or obtain leave of the court, the possession was unauthorised and had to be restored to the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent could take possession of the vehicle, which was in the custody of the court and subject to confirmed attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, without first obtaining leave of the Special Court and without following Rule 7 of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013.

Analysis: The vehicle was in custodia legis. The Court held that once confirmed attached property is in the custody of a court, the authorised officer must approach that court by filing an application along with the provisional attachment order and the confirmation order under the Act. The procedure prescribed by Rule 7 is mandatory and cannot be bypassed. The contrary view urged on behalf of the respondent was not accepted, as the Court treated compliance with the rule as necessary before possession could lawfully be taken. The Court also emphasised that the respondent had taken possession without informing the court and without obtaining leave.

Conclusion: The respondent could not lawfully take possession of the vehicle without following Rule 7 and obtaining leave of the court; the possession already taken was unauthorised and was directed to be restored to the appellant.

---