2026 (9) TMI 418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....') to challenge the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority to allow retention of the documents seized from the possession of the appellant during the course of search between 20.11.2023 and 22.11.2023. The respondents sent an application to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 17(4) of the Act of 2002 to seek retention of the documents. The Adjudicating Authority, vide its impugned order, allowed retention of the documents seized from the possession of the appellant. The present case otherwise arose on a complaint of Mr. Purushothaman of Trichy, Economic Offences Wing against M/s Pranav Jewellers, its founder Mr. Selvaraj Mathan, his wife Mrs. Karthika and Mr. Narayanan, Branch Manager of the company. 2. The FIR ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (One Working Copy having S. No.NAE38B5E + (One Seized/Master Copy having S.No.NAE38B3G. 5. The Adjudicating Authority has allowed retention of the documents aforesaid finding transaction of the appellant with the accused company M/s Pranav Jewellers and aggrieved by it, the present appeal has been filed. Arguments of counsel for the appellant: 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the fact that the appellant was not given a fair opportunity of hearing. The relied upon documents (RUDs) were not served on it so as to give a detailed reply to the notice. A copy of the Panchnama was given disclosing the documents....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant did not raise any other argument than referred to above. It is despite an opportunity and called upon by the Tribunal to raise any other legal or factual issue. The counsel for the appellant prayed for consideration of the issues raised by him and closed his arguments. Arguments of counsel for the respondents: 10. The learned counsel for the respondents has contested the appeal on all the grounds urged by the appellant. Elaborate arguments were made on each issue and would be referred while recording finding by this Tribunal. It is to avoid repetition of facts and otherwise for the sake of brevity. Finding of the Tribunal: 11. In the opening paras, I have made reference regarding registration of the FIR on the complain....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e respondents on the ground that a copy of the seized documents was not required to be supplied to the appellant. The appellant was having an opportunity to obtain copy of the documents under Section 21(2) of the Act of 2002. The Adjudicating Authority has also denied to provide any document other than supplied along with the notice which was a "Panchnama" of seized articles. The argument aforesaid has been considered by me and find that if either of the parties relies upon the documents and refers in the pleadings and if the order is passed by the Adjudicating Authority based on the aforesaid, copy of the documents needs to be supplied. The appellant has been served with a copy of the Panchnama and not the documents though said to have bee....