TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2017 issued by opposite party no. 1 under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, hereinafter referred to as "PML Act, 2002", for brevity, calling upon the petitioners to appear before him and show cause as to why the provisional order of attachment dated 27-3-2017 passed by the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement (PMLA) under Section 5(1) of the PML Act, 2002 should not be quashed. In that writ application, the point of essence raised challenging the initiation of the proceeding as aforestated on the ground that the proceeding under the PML Act, 2002 is a parallel civil proceeding based upon the allegations made in the FIR by the Vigilance Department in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 37, dated 2-6-2010 and the charge-s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y no. 1 to consider this matter in the light of the observations made by this Court in the proceeding paragraphs and to take a decision whether to continue with the proceeding or to keep the same in abeyance till a particular stage in the criminal trial is achieved. This Court is of the opinion that the Enforcement Directorates are manned by very Senior Officers, experts and knowledgeable officers and if the petitioner makes his grievance before such a forum, then his grievance can be considered and disposed of as per law. However, this Court further directs that till a decision is taken by opposite party no. 1, the petitioner should not create any 3rd party interest of the property attached even after expiry of 180 days. He is given libert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner before the Adjudicating Authority in evidence against him. Though specifically it was not pleaded that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India is violated thereby, this Court understand that the same principle is argued though in a different manner relying upon different provisions of the PML Act, 2002. The writ appeal has been dismissed in the meantime by order dated 22-8-2017. It is apposite to quote the exact order passed by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court. "11. Mr. S. Acharya, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant does not dispute the forums available under the Statute against final order of attachment passed by the adjudicating authority. But the sole ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed of with the observation that the findings, which may be recorded by the adjudicating authority, would be prima facie the findings under the provisions of the PML Act, 2002 and the same would not have any binding effect on the trial Court, which would try the case/charges against the appellant in the criminal case under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I shall add another stipulation in this observation that since the civil proceeding is separate and distinct proceeding, the show cause filed by the petitioners or evidence led by the petitioners before the adjudicating authority will be in no way used by the prosecuting agency against the petitioners in the criminal trial pending before the Learned Vigilance Judge. 4.&e....