Court dismisses petition challenging search & seizure, citing lack of jurisdiction & failure to establish illegality.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the search and seizure by the Enforcement Directorate, citing lack of jurisdiction to interfere with actions taken in Mumbai when properties were forwarded to Delhi. The court emphasized territorial jurisdiction and alternative remedies, rejecting arguments on the legality of the search and seizure under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the effect of a stay on the predicate offence by the Supreme Court. The petitioner failed to establish the illegality of the actions, leading to the dismissal of the petition for lacking merit.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a petition challenging search and seizure by the Enforcement Directorate.
2. Legality of search and seizure conducted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
3. Effect of stay on predicate offence by the Supreme Court on proceedings under the PML Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the High Court
The petitioner-company filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking relief from the FIR and search and seizure conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The petitioner argued that the freezing of accounts caused significant financial loss, impacting operations such as salary payments, tax obligations, and other expenditures. The ED contended that the petitioner should approach the Bombay High Court or the Adjudicating Authority in Delhi for relief, as the properties seized were forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority in Delhi. The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to interfere with actions taken by the ED in Mumbai when the properties were seized and forwarded to Delhi. The court emphasized the importance of territorial jurisdiction in such matters and dismissed the petition.

Issue 2: Legality of Search and Seizure
The petitioner challenged the legality of the search and seizure conducted by the ED under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The petitioner argued that the search was illegal as the predicate offence had been stayed by the Supreme Court. The ED objected, stating that the Adjudicating Authority had seized the matter, and the petitioner should seek relief from the appropriate courts. The court noted the petitioner's contention that the seized materials could not be held for more than 30 days and should be defreezed. However, the court held that the petitioner failed to establish the illegality of the search and seizure and dismissed the petition.

Issue 3: Effect of Stay on Predicate Offence
The petitioner relied on judgments indicating that when a predicate offence is stayed by the Supreme Court, proceedings under the PML Act should also be stayed. The court acknowledged the stay on the predicate offence by the Supreme Court and cited relevant judgments supporting the petitioner's argument. However, the court emphasized that the FIRs were registered in Mumbai, and the properties were forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority in Delhi. The court concluded that the petitioner should seek relief from the courts with the appropriate territorial jurisdiction and dismissed the petition for lacking merit.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of territorial jurisdiction and the availability of alternative remedies for the petitioner to challenge the search and seizure conducted by the Enforcement Directorate.

---