Restoration of attached money under PMLA cannot be blocked by a proviso tied to a different sub-section.

Section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act permits the Special Court to pass appropriate orders for confiscation or release when trial cannot be concluded or proceed for specified reasons. The second proviso to Section 8(8) operates only in the distinct context of restoration after confiscation to the Central Government, and Rule 3A is merely procedural to that proviso. A proviso cannot be extended to control a different sub-section unless the statute clearly says so. On that basis, the bank's claim for return of attached money was not barred, and restoration of the available attached amount with interest was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second proviso to Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and Rule 3A of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016 could be applied to a claim for return of attached money under Section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, and whether the bank was entitled to restoration of the attached amounts pending trial.

Analysis: The claim for restoration was founded on Section 8(7), which empowers the Special Court to pass appropriate orders regarding confiscation or release where the trial cannot be concluded or cannot proceed for specified reasons. The second proviso to Section 8(8) was introduced later and operates only within the field of sub-section (8), which deals with restoration after confiscation to the Central Government. A proviso cannot be stretched to govern a distinct sub-section unless the language clearly so provides. Rule 3A is only a procedural sequel to the second proviso and becomes relevant only when the Special Court chooses to act under that proviso. Since the attached funds represented public money lying idle and the trial had made no progress for a long period, there was no legal impediment to considering restoration in favour of the claimant bank.

Conclusion: The second proviso to Section 8(8) and Rule 3A did not bar the bank's claim under Section 8(7), and the bank was entitled to restoration of the available attached amount with interest.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, and the order directing release of the attached money in favour of the bank was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A proviso attached to one sub-section cannot be extended to control a different sub-section unless the statute expressly says so, and procedural restoration rules operate only within the substantive field created by the enabling provision.

---