Mandatory freezing safeguards under the Act require reason to believe, recorded reasons, and timely adjudication, not mere suspicion.

The statutory scheme for search, seizure, freezing and adjudication was treated as a complete code, and continuation of a freezing order had to comply with the prescribed outer time limit and application requirement. Because no timely application for continuation was filed, the freezing of the appellant's own bank accounts was held unsustainable and set aside. The Tribunal also stated that freezing property under the Act requires material showing reason to believe, recorded reasons and compliance with the statutory procedure; mere suspicion is insufficient. Freezing orders concerning the husband's or joint accounts were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the freezing of the appellant's bank accounts could be sustained when no complaint or application under the amended adjudication provision was filed within the prescribed period. (ii) Whether the power to freeze property under the Act could be exercised on mere suspicion without the statutory safeguards of reason to believe, recorded reasons, and timely recourse to the Adjudicating Authority.

Issue (i): Whether the freezing of the appellant's bank accounts could be sustained when no complaint or application under the amended adjudication provision was filed within the prescribed period.

Analysis: The statutory scheme for search, seizure, freezing, retention, and adjudication was read as a complete code. The amended provision governing continuation of attachment or freezing during investigation fixed a specific outer limit, and the Tribunal held that the limit had to be applied as enacted. Since the required application for continuation was not filed within time, the continuation of the freezing order could not be supported as against the appellant's accounts.

Conclusion: The freezing of the appellant's bank accounts was not sustainable and had to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the power to freeze property under the Act could be exercised on mere suspicion without the statutory safeguards of reason to believe, recorded reasons, and timely recourse to the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis: The Tribunal treated the Act as a special statute containing mandatory safeguards. The power to freeze property was held to be available only on the basis of material giving reason to believe, with recorded reasons and compliance with the statutory procedure. Mere suspicion was held insufficient, and the Tribunal rejected the attempt to justify an indeterminate freeze without observance of the statutory timeline and adjudicatory process.

Conclusion: Freezing could not be justified on mere suspicion or outside the statutory safeguards.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of the appellant's own bank accounts, which were ordered to be de-frozen, while the freezing orders concerning the husband's or joint accounts were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes a mandatory period and procedure for continuation of freezing or retention of property, non-compliance with those requirements renders the freezing unsustainable; the power cannot be exercised on mere suspicion without reason to believe and recorded reasons.

---