HC held that the Appellate Tribunal had erroneously set aside the adjudication order by treating absence of a "prosecution complaint" against Respondent A as decisive, although such a contention was never raised and a supplementary complaint had in fact been filed. HC clarified that, under s.17 PMLA, a valid search and seizure does not require that the premises belong to a person already arraigned as an accused; it is sufficient that the authorised officer has "reason to believe" that proceeds of crime or related records are located there, and that the statutory preconditions are met. Finding that these conditions were satisfied and that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law, HC set aside the impugned order dated 21.05.2019 and remanded the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh adjudication after hearing both sides.
HC held that the Appellate Tribunal had erroneously set aside the adjudication order by treating absence of a "prosecution complaint" against Respondent A as decisive, although such a contention was never raised and a supplementary complaint had in fact been filed. HC clarified that, under s.17 PMLA, a valid search and seizure does not require that the premises belong to a person already arraigned as an accused; it is sufficient that the authorised officer has "reason to believe" that proceeds of crime or related records are located there, and that the statutory preconditions are met. Finding that these conditions were satisfied and that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law, HC set aside the impugned order dated 21.05.2019 and remanded the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh adjudication after hearing both sides.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
