Strict appellate limitation under PMLA bars condonation of unexplained re-filing delay, while tribunal directions on seized material were upheld.

A strict appellate limitation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not be relaxed on the facts, because a 225-day delay in re-filing the appeal was left unsatisfactorily explained and was therefore not condoned. The High Court also found no infirmity in the Tribunal's directions distinguishing between seized documents and digital devices forming part of the prosecution complaint and those not forming part of it; the latter could be released, while the former could be retained and used on the terms recorded. Further relief, if any, was left to the statutory remedy under Section 35(3).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in re-filing the appeal could be condoned; (ii) Whether the Tribunal's directions regarding release and retention of seized documents and digital devices suffered from any infirmity warranting interference in appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in re-filing the appeal could be condoned.

Analysis: The appeal was re-filed after a delay of 225 days. The explanation offered for the delay was found unsatisfactory. The Court noted that the appeal papers were substantially typed and photocopied, and that Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 prescribes a strict time limit for appeal, permitting only a limited extension on sufficient cause being shown.

Conclusion: The delay in re-filing was not condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's directions regarding release and retention of seized documents and digital devices suffered from any infirmity warranting interference in appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal had directed release of documents and digital devices not forming part of the prosecution complaint, while retaining those which did form part of the complaint and permitting their use subject to the terms recorded. The Court found no infirmity in those directions and held that, to the extent the appellant sought enforcement or further relief, the proper course was to avail the remedy under Section 35(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Conclusion: No interference was called for on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed both on limitation and on merits, and was dismissed, with liberty to the appellant to pursue remedies in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a strict appellate limitation with a limited power of extension, an unexplained and excessive delay in re-filing cannot be condoned, and appellate interference is unwarranted where the impugned directions disclose no legal infirmity and an alternate statutory remedy remains available.

---