2021 (10) TMI 705

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the petitioners; and Mr.Anil Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondents. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges order dated 7th June, 2021 issued by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. 3. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that Central Bureau of Investigation had registered a first information on 25th October, 2017 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On the basis of information received from the Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi, the Deput....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....operties were acquired much prior to registration of the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, it cannot be said that the properties were acquired on the basis of the tainted money. That apart, from the materials on record, the comparatively small amount of Rs. 3 crores certainly cannot be said to have been received by petitioner No.2 as part of the proceeds of crime. In the absence thereof respondents did not have the jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioners under the PMLA Act. Another submission of Mr. Nankani is that value of the scheduled properties would be approximately Rs. 72 crores, whereas according to the respondents themselves petitioner No.2 is in possession of proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 3 crores. Therefore, s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent Private Limited Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, dated 23rd August, 2021. 6. In his reply Mr.Nankani has placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited Vs. State of Bihar, decided on 24th September, 2021 to buttress his contention that when there is lack of jurisdiction, recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be available to the aggrieved party. He also submits that Punjab and Haryana High Court in Seema Garg Vs. Deputy Director, 2020 SCC P&H 378 has held amongst others that property acquired prior to commission of scheduled offence cannot be attached. Petition for special leave to appeal filed by the Directorate of Enforcement against the above decision was dismiss....