PMLA freezing and seizure must follow Section 17, and general CrPC powers cannot replace that special procedure.

In proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Directorate of Enforcement cannot use Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to freeze or seize property instead of following Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 prescribes a specific mandatory procedure, including possession of information, recorded reasons to believe, and forwarding those reasons and material to the Adjudicating Authority, while Sections 65 and 71 preserve the Act's overriding and special character. The general CrPC seizure power cannot dilute or replace that stricter statutory scheme, so the appeal failed on this issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Directorate of Enforcement could resort to Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for freezing or seizing property instead of complying with Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Section 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applies the Code of Criminal Procedure only to the extent that its provisions are not inconsistent with the Act. Section 71 gives the Act overriding effect. Section 17 lays down a specific procedure for search, seizure and freezing, including the precondition of information in possession, a recorded reason to believe, and forwarding of the recorded reasons and material to the Adjudicating Authority. Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a general seizure provision based on suspicion, and cannot dilute or replace the stricter statutory requirements contained in Section 17. The special procedure under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 must prevail over the general procedure in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The Directorate of Enforcement could not proceed under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in place of Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The appeal failed on this issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute prescribes a specific and mandatory procedure for search, seizure or freezing, that procedure must be strictly followed and the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 apply only residually and only to the extent they are not inconsistent with the special statute.

---