TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Granted: Search and Seizure Upheld Under PMLA Section 17</h1> <h3>The Additional Director, The Deputy Director Versus M/s. Musaddilal Gems and Jewels (India) Private Limited Union Of India</h3> The Additional Director, The Deputy Director Versus M/s. Musaddilal Gems and Jewels (India) Private Limited Union Of India - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the search and seizure conducted under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).2. Maintainability of the writ petition given the alternative remedy under Section 8(1) of PMLA.3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 17 of PMLA.Summary:Legality of Search and Seizure:The respondents filed a writ petition challenging the search and seizure conducted on their premises by the appellants on 17.10.2022, claiming it was contrary to Section 17 of PMLA. The respondents contended that the search warrant was not served, and the search was conducted without proper notice or hearing. They argued that the search and seizure were arbitrary and violated PMLA provisions, asserting that the seized items were part of their business stock and secured assets.Maintainability of Writ Petition:The appellants contested the writ petition, arguing it was not maintainable as the respondents had an alternative remedy under Section 8(1) of PMLA. They highlighted the background of the case, including an FIR and charge sheet filed by CBI against other entities, and provisional attachment orders issued by the Enforcement Directorate.Compliance with Procedural Requirements:The respondents argued that the search and seizure were conducted without recording reasons to believe in writing as mandated by Section 17(1) of PMLA. The learned Single Judge directed the appellants to produce the relevant records, which revealed discrepancies in the recording of reasons to believe. The Judge held that the Additional Director did not record the reasons, and the Deputy Director recorded them without date and time, thus violating Section 17(1) of PMLA. Consequently, the learned Single Judge set aside the search and seizure and directed the release of the seized items.Appeal and Final Judgment:The appellants filed an appeal against the Single Judge's order. They submitted affidavits explaining that the reasons to believe were recorded on 16.10.2022 by the Additional Director, and the search warrant was issued on 17.10.2022. The Court found that the reasons to believe were indeed recorded as required by Section 17(1) of PMLA. The Court concluded that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that no reasons to believe were recorded, which vitiated the search action. Consequently, the Court set aside the Single Judge's order and allowed the appeal, affirming the legality of the search and seizure conducted on 17.10.2022.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
