Single-member PMLA Bench, limitation exclusion, and prima facie proceeds-of-crime link upheld for attachment confirmation.

A single-member Bench of the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was held to be valid because the statutory scheme permits constitution of Benches with one or two Members, so the coram non judice objection failed. Limitation for retaining seized material and confirming provisional attachment was computed by excluding the COVID-19 suspension period, and no demonstrable error or prejudice was shown, so the limitation challenge failed. At the attachment stage, only prima facie satisfaction is required, and the materials on record, including the smuggling-linked background, property transfers, call detail records, and the unexplained source of funds, were sufficient to support confirmation of the attachment as involving proceeds of crime.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the composition of the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was invalid because the impugned order was passed by a single-member Bench; (ii) Whether the order retaining seized materials and confirming the provisional attachment was barred by limitation under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002; (iii) Whether the impugned orders were supported by material showing that the attached properties were proceeds of crime.

Issue (i): Whether the composition of the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was invalid because the impugned order was passed by a single-member Bench?

Analysis: Section 6(2) contemplates the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority with a Chairperson and Members, but Section 6(5)(b) empowers the Chairperson to constitute Benches with one or two Members. Read together, the scheme permits adjudication by a single-member Bench and does not make a multi-member Bench mandatory in every case. The challenge based on coram non judice therefore fails, particularly when no lack of jurisdiction, qualification, or prejudice is demonstrated.

Conclusion: The composition of the Adjudicating Authority was valid and the challenge on this ground was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the order retaining seized materials and confirming the provisional attachment was barred by limitation under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002?

Analysis: The period of limitation had to be computed by excluding the COVID-19 suspension of limitation granted by the Supreme Court. The adjudicating authority had recorded reasons for computation after exclusion of the affected period, and the petitioners did not show any demonstrable error or prejudice. A mere procedural irregularity in computation, without miscarriage of justice, does not invalidate the order.

Conclusion: The limitation challenge failed and the orders were not liable to be set aside on that ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned orders were supported by material showing that the attached properties were proceeds of crime?

Analysis: At the stage of provisional attachment and its confirmation, the authority is required to reach only a prima facie satisfaction on the basis of material on record. The circumstances noted in the order, including the smuggling-linked background, the movement of property into the petitioners' names, the call detail records, and the failure to establish a credible source of funds, were treated as sufficient to indicate a link with proceeds of crime. The petitioners also failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the funds, justifying adverse inference and confirmation of the attachment.

Conclusion: The findings were supported by material and the attached properties were treated as prima facie proceeds of crime.

Final Conclusion: All three writ petitions were rejected, and the impugned orders retaining the seized materials and confirming the provisional attachment were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 6(5)(b) permits adjudication by a single-member Bench, limitation under the Act must account for the COVID-related exclusion period, and at the attachment stage a prima facie link between the property and proceeds of crime is sufficient to sustain confirmation.

---