PMLA safeguards for search, seizure and retention require recorded reasons to believe, founded on material in possession, that seized property is prima facie connected with proceeds of crime and needed for adjudication. Suspicion or unsubstantiated allegations do not satisfy these requirements, and a retention order cannot be justified later through new grounds in a counter-affidavit. Persons asserting ownership of seized property must receive independent notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Non-compliance with these statutory and natural-justice requirements rendered the retention order unsustainable; it was set aside, while the investigation could continue in accordance with law. Availability of a statutory appeal did not bar writ review of alleged jurisdictional, mandatory-procedure and natural-justice violations.
PMLA safeguards for search, seizure and retention require recorded reasons to believe, founded on material in possession, that seized property is prima facie connected with proceeds of crime and needed for adjudication. Suspicion or unsubstantiated allegations do not satisfy these requirements, and a retention order cannot be justified later through new grounds in a counter-affidavit. Persons asserting ownership of seized property must receive independent notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Non-compliance with these statutory and natural-justice requirements rendered the retention order unsustainable; it was set aside, while the investigation could continue in accordance with law. Availability of a statutory appeal did not bar writ review of alleged jurisdictional, mandatory-procedure and natural-justice violations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
