Petition Dismissed: Court Emphasizes Alternate Remedy Availability u/s 8 of PMLA, Highlighting Statutory Appeal Process.

The HC dismissed the petition challenging the order under Section 8 of the PMLA, emphasizing the availability of an alternate remedy. The petitioner argued a lack of jurisdiction and inadequate opportunity to present documents, but the Court highlighted the statutory appeal process under Section 26, rendering the petition non-maintainable under Article 227.

---

---

Issues involved:
Impugning order u/s 8 of PMLA - Proper opportunity for documents - Alternate remedy under Section 26

Impugned Order u/s 8 of PMLA:
The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) which was based on a search conducted at the petitioner's premises resulting in the seizure of foreign currency and registration of offences under scheduled sections of IPC. An application was filed for adjudication under Section 8, and the impugned order was passed on that application as per sub-Sections 2 and 3 of Section 8.

Proper Opportunity for Documents:
The petitioner contended that he was not given a fair chance to present certain crucial documents to the adjudicating authority, which could have influenced the outcome in his favor. These documents were produced later and were crucial for his defense.

Alternate Remedy under Section 26:
The Respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal under Section 26 before the Appellate Tribunal, citing a relevant Supreme Court judgment. However, the petitioner argued that the impugned order lacked jurisdiction as it did not establish the involvement of the perpetrators in money laundering, which is essential for the authority to proceed under Section 8.

Court's Decision:
The Court noted the statutory scheme providing for two appeals - first to the Appellate Tribunal and then to the High Court on questions of law or fact. Referring to the principle established in a specific case, the Court concluded that the petition should not be entertained under Article 227 due to the availability of an alternate remedy. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, emphasizing the importance of following the statutory appeal process.

---