Confirmed money laundering attachment bars release of seized ornaments to the accused; custody shifts to enforcement authorities.

Confirmed provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act prevented release of seized ornaments to the accused under criminal court custody powers. Although the ornaments were not required as material evidence and were not liable for confiscation under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, the Magistrate could not direct their return once the attachment had been confirmed. The proper course was transfer of custody to the Enforcement Directorate for safe keeping, subject to orders of the competent forum. The order directing release to the accused was therefore set aside insofar as it concerned the ornaments.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ornaments seized in the prohibition case, after a provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority, could be released to the accused under the Magistrate's order under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The seized ornaments had initially been directed to be returned by the Magistrate, but that order had been stayed. Thereafter, the Enforcement Directorate passed a provisional attachment order and the attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. In view of the statutory remedy available under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the confirmed attachment, the ornaments could not be handed over to the accused. At the same time, the ornaments were not liable for confiscation under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and were not required as material evidence, so continued custody with the Magistrate was unnecessary.

Conclusion: The petition was allowed and the Magistrate's order was set aside insofar as it related to the ornaments. The ornaments were directed to be handed over to the Enforcement Directorate for safe custody, subject to further orders of the competent forum.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the release of the ornaments succeeded, and the custody arrangement was modified in favour of enforcement authorities instead of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: Once seized property is the subject of a confirmed provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, it cannot be released to the accused by invoking criminal court custody powers, though the court may direct transfer to enforcement custody where the property is not needed as evidence or for confiscation under the other statute.

---