Restoration of confiscated property under PMLA requires statutory conditions, including framed charges and final adjudication.

Restoration of confiscated property under the second proviso to section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is contingent on the statutory conditions in the Restoration of Confiscated Property Rules being met. Rule 3A requires framing of charge under section 4 before a restoration application can be moved during trial, and a pending challenge to the adjudication order means the confirmation process has not reached the finality contemplated by the scheme. Because these requirements were unmet, the Special Court lacked authority to restore the property at that stage, and the restoration order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order restoring the property to the second respondent under section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was valid when the appeal against the adjudication order was still pending and charges under section 4 had not been framed.

Analysis: Section 8(8) permits restoration of confiscated property to a claimant with a legitimate interest, but the second proviso operates only in the manner prescribed by the Rules. Rule 3A of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Restoration of Confiscated Property) Rules, 2016 makes framing of charge under section 4 a necessary precondition for moving an application for restoration during trial. The pending challenge to the adjudication order also meant that the confirmation process had not attained the finality contemplated for the statutory scheme. In view of these unmet statutory requirements, the Special Court could not grant restoration at that stage.

Conclusion: The impugned restoration order was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for restoration under the second proviso to section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can be entertained only after the statutory conditions prescribed by the Rules are satisfied, including framing of charge where required, and it cannot override a pending appellate challenge to the adjudication order.

---