PMLA search validity under Section 17 depends on statutory preconditions, not on prior complaint against the searched person.

A search under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was treated as valid even though the prior complaint or report was not against the person searched, because the provision did not require the earlier complaint to name that same and the statutory precondition of prior complaint or report had been satisfied. The Appellate Tribunal's retention order was found unsustainable because it proceeded on an incorrect reading of those preconditions. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, with the respondent to be heard on remaining factual and legal objections.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a search under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be sustained when the prior complaint or report was not against the very person searched; (ii) Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal confirming retention could stand in view of the statutory framework governing search, seizure and retention under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether a search under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be sustained when the prior complaint or report was not against the very person searched.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits search of any person who is found to be involved in money laundering, in possession of proceeds of crime, records relating to money laundering, or property related to crime. The precondition, as it then stood, was the prior institution of a complaint or forwarding of a report under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but the provision did not require that such complaint or report must necessarily be against the same person searched. The earlier complaint in the connected matter had already been filed and cognizance had been taken. The search was therefore not invalid merely because the respondent was not shown as an accused in that complaint.

Conclusion: The search under Section 17 was legally permissible and the contrary view was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal confirming retention could stand in view of the statutory framework governing search, seizure and retention under the Act.

Analysis: The Tribunal had proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the statutory preconditions and had been influenced by the absence of a prosecution complaint specifically against the respondent, although that was not the relevant test for action under Section 17. Since the relevant precondition for search stood satisfied, the impugned order could not be sustained. At the same time, the respondent was to be afforded an opportunity to raise the remaining factual and legal contentions before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The enforcement appeal succeeded, the Tribunal's order was annulled, and the dispute was sent back for a fresh decision after hearing both sides.

---