PMLA property restoration must strictly follow statutory eligibility and procedure; revisional challenge to the release order was maintainable.

An order concerning custody or restoration of attached property under the PMLA is not automatically interlocutory; where it finally determines rights at that stage or is challenged for lack of jurisdiction, it is revisable, so the revision was maintainable. Restoration relief under Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, read with the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016, is available only to a qualifying claimant who satisfies the statutory eligibility conditions and prescribed notice and procedural safeguards. Because the Special Court did not apply those requirements before permitting release of the attached property in lieu of fixed deposit, the order was held illegal and unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision petition was barred as against an interlocutory order. (ii) Whether the Special Court's order permitting release of attached property in lieu of fixed deposit was contrary to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the applicable Restoration of Property Rules.

Issue (i): Whether the revision petition was barred as against an interlocutory order.

Analysis: An order deciding entitlement to custody or disposal of property is not necessarily interlocutory merely because it is passed during the pendency of proceedings. The decisive test is whether the order finally determines rights of the parties at that stage. Where the challenge is also founded on want of jurisdiction or violation of the governing statute, the order assumes final character for the purpose of revision. Applying that approach, the order of the Special Court releasing the property in lieu of fixed deposit was held to be revisable.

Conclusion: The revision petition was maintainable and not barred by Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (ii): Whether the Special Court's order permitting release of attached property in lieu of fixed deposit was contrary to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the applicable Restoration of Property Rules.

Analysis: The power to consider restoration of attached property during trial is controlled by the statutory scheme in Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the prescribed procedure under the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016. Relief is confined to a claimant who has acted in good faith, suffered quantifiable loss despite reasonable precautions, and is not involved in money laundering. The prescribed procedure also requires notice and other safeguards under Rules 3 and 3A. The impugned order did not address the statutory definition of claimant, the required procedural steps, or the eligibility conditions, and thus travelled beyond the governing framework.

Conclusion: The impugned order was illegal and unsustainable for non-compliance with Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Rules 2(b), 3 and 3A of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed and the Special Court's order was set aside for failure to apply the statutory conditions and procedure governing restoration of property under the PMLA regime.

Ratio Decidendi: An order concerning restoration or custody of property under the PMLA is revisable if it finally determines rights at that stage or is challenged as being without jurisdiction, and such restoration can be ordered only in strict compliance with the statutory eligibility conditions and prescribed procedure.

---