Appeal allowed, currency to be returned, HDD copy retained, documents returned, no costs.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order dated 26.05.2017. The seized currency was to be returned to the appellant as it belonged to his father. The respondent could retain a copy of the HDD before returning it to the appellant. The documents/records were to be returned to the appellant immediately. No costs were imposed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Retention of documents, Hard Disk Drive (HDD), and Indian currency seized from the appellant's residential premises.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 17, 18, 20, and 21 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
3. Validity of the seizure and retention of property beyond the prescribed period.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Retention of Documents, HDD, and Indian Currency:
The Adjudicating Authority allowed the respondent's application under Section 17(4) of the PMLA, seeking retention of documents, HDD, and Indian currency seized from the appellant's residential premises on 18.02.2017. The seized items included Indian currency amounting to Rs. 4,25,000, an HDD, and documents related to the office premises of the appellant. The appellant argued that the seized currency and HDD did not belong to him but to his father and daughter, respectively. Additionally, the documents pertained to a period before the appellant's alleged involvement with Sanjay Bhandari.

2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The search and seizure actions were initiated based on a notice from the Income Tax Department and a letter regarding Sanjay Bhandari's undisclosed foreign assets. The respondent conducted searches at the appellant's premises and locker but found no incriminating material in the locker. The appellant contended that the seized items were unrelated to the proceedings against Sanjay Bhandari and provided supporting documents, including a letter from his father and a bank statement. The respondent's rejoinder did not deny the appellant's claims about the seized currency and the timeline of his meeting with Sanjay Bhandari.

3. Validity of Seizure and Retention Beyond Prescribed Period:
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was passed on 26.05.2017, and no FIR or charge-sheet had been filed against the appellant. Section 17 of the PMLA requires the authorized officer to record the reasons for belief in writing before conducting a search and seizure. The Tribunal observed that the search and seizure must comply with specific conditions, such as forwarding a report to a Magistrate or filing a complaint. In this case, no such report or complaint was filed against the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the outer limit for deciding the application for retention of property is 180 days from the date of seizure, which was not extendable unless a prosecution complaint was filed within 90 days from the retention order. Since no prosecution complaint was filed even after more than a year, the retention of the property was deemed invalid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order dated 26.05.2017. The Tribunal directed the respondent to return the seized currency to the appellant, as it belonged to his father. The respondent was allowed to take a copy of the HDD before returning it to the appellant. The original receipt and possession letter could be retained by the respondent, with a photocopy provided to the appellant. The application under Section 17(4) for retention of documents was disposed of accordingly. The Tribunal ordered the respondent to return the documents/records to the appellant forthwith. No costs were imposed.

---