2024 (8) TMI 661

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2002. The order aforesaid was passed on the Original Application No.523/2021 to seek detention of the cash/documents/digital devices seized under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 vide Punchnama dated 05-06.08.2021. 2. The detailed facts of the case have been narrated in the appeal, however, while arguing it, the learned counsel for the appellant sought lapse of the seizure in reference to Section 8(3) of the Act of 2002. It was submitted that the order of seizure can continue during investigation for a period not exceeding 365 days or the pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under the Act. Referring to the date of the order dated 25.05.2022, it was submitted that till date the investigation has not been completed. No prosecut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. 6. A challenge to the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 25.05.2022 has been made on many grounds but during the pendency of the appeal, it was revealed that the investigation required to be completed within 365 days as per Section 8(3)(a) of the Act has not yet been completed and thereby the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority cannot continue, rather deserves to be lapsed. For ready reference, Section 8(3) of the Act of 2002 is quoted hereunder: "8. Adjudication-(1) and (2) x x x (3) Where the Adjudicating Authority decides under sub-section (2) that any property is involved in money-laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the attachment of the property made under sub-section (1)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inuation of the attachment would be even if there is pendency of proceedings relating to the offence under the Act before the Court. It is no doubt that Section 8(3)(a) has two limbs for continuance of the order of attachment or seizure. The first limb refers to the period of investigation not exceeding 365 days. The second limb is about the pendency of the proceedings in the Court. If the pendency of the proceedings relating to offence is construed or taken even prior to completion of investigation resulting in prosecution complaint then there was no necessity to even provide the period of investigation for the purpose of continuance of the order of attachment. In fact, proceedings before the Court starts from the stage of submission of pr....