Union Of India vs J. P. Singh S/O Late S.B. Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1837 Guj

      C/FA/3179/2021                             JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2022



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3179 of 2021
                                    With
                 CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
                      In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3179 of 2021


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI                                     Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE                            Sd/-
================================================================
1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                 No
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                          No

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                No
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question                No
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================
                                UNION OF INDIA
                                    Versus
                       J. P. SINGH S/O LATE S.B. SINGH
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. PARTH H BHATT(6381) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
          and
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                              Date : 16/02/2022
                              ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)

By way of present appeal under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ["PMLA Act" for short], the appellant - Union of India has challenged the order

C/FA/3179/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2022

dated 25.4.2019 passed by the Appellate Tribunal (PMLA), New Delhi established under the PMLA Act in proceedings namely MP.PMLA-4462/DLI/2018 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-2298/DLI/2018.

2. Mr. Parth Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the contention raised in the memo of the first appeal, more particularly paragraph-11 contending that though a complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA Act has been filed on 25.6.2019, the Appellate Tribunal has committed error in observing that no complaint has been filed under Section 8(3)

(a) of the PMLA Act.

3. On the other hand, Mr. J.P.Singh appearing for the respondent in person would submit that as per the contention raised by the appellate authority itself, the complaint has been filed on 25.6.2019 i.e. subsequent to the order impugned in present appeal and therefore, the observations made by the learned Appellate Tribunal cannot be treated as incorrect or contrary to the provisions of Section 8(3)(a) of the PMLA Act.

4. We have heard learned advocate for the appellant and party-in-person for the respondent.

5. It is undisputed fact that the order challenged in this appeal is passed on 25.4.2019 by the Appellate Tribunal in proceedings MP.PMLA-4462/DLI/2018 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA- 2298/DLI/2018 wherein following observations have been made in paragraph-4:-

"4. 90 days period has already been expired from the date of passing the impugned order. No prosecution complaint under Section 8(3)(a) of the Act, has been filed. The period is mandatory in nature.

C/FA/3179/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2022

The retention order in the above said matter was passed on 04 th April, 2018. More than one year has been passed. Counsel for the respondent has confirmed that no prosecution complaint has been filed by the respondent. Under these circumstances, retention lapses, the appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent is directed to handover the seized properties retain by them within a period of three weeks. The appeal and pending application are accordingly disposed of. It is clarified that by this order, we have not dealt with the merit of the case."

5.1 While observing the aforesaid aspects, considering the provisions of Section 8(3)(a) of the PMLA Act, the learned Appellate Tribunal has specifically observed that the authority had not filed any complaint within the prescribed period of 90 days.

5.2 Even in paragraph-11 of the appeal memo, it is specifically stated that:-

"11. It is worthwhile to mention here that on 25.6.2019, the Supplementary Prosecution Complaint u/s 44 & 45 of PMLA, 2002 has been filed before Ld. Special PMLA Court, Patiala House Court against present Respondent Sh.J.P.Singh including Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sh. Bimal Ramgopal Agarwa, Sh. Dhruv Kumar Singh, Sh. Sonu Y. Jalan, Sh. JK Arora and Sh. Paresh Patel, which is also pending trial and the matter is further listed for 22.08.2019. However, the investigation on certain other aspects has been kept continued."

5.3 From the aforesaid contention, it becomes clear that the appeal has been filed subsequent to the order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal.

6. At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that neither the prosecution complaint which has been filed on 25.6.2019 is produced on record nor the retention order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 4.4.2018 by which the goods seized from the respondent was ordered to be retained. Even the appellant has not filed any rejoinder to the reply dated 24.1.2022 filed by the

C/FA/3179/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2022

respondent.

7. Considering all the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal. Hence, present appeal is dismissed.

In view of disposal of main appeal, Civil Application for stay would not survive.

Sd/-

(A.J.DESAI, J)

Sd/-

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN