Kerala High Court
Saidalavi Alias Bava vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(Crl.) No.1189 of 2025
1
2025:KER:69387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025/26TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1189 OF 2025
CRIME NO.2013/2023 OF ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE KOCHI, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.3:
SAIDALAVI ALIAS BAVA
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O ABDHULLA, EDAKKANDAN HOUSE,
CHULLIPARAMBA, PARAMBILPADI, VENGARA P.O,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676304
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ
SRI.BIBIN MATHEW
SRI.P.M.MATHEW
SRI.AMARNATH R LAL
SHRI.SANALDEV E.P.
SMT.VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN
SHRI.SONYMON ANTONY
SMT.SHIFANA M.
SHRI.ABHIJITH P.A.
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, PRAVARTAN BHAVAN,
DR. APJ ABDUL KALAM ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, COCHIN ZONAL OFFICE,
KANOOS CASTLE, A. K. SHESHADRI ROAD, COCHIN- 682011
BY ADV SMT.LAKSHMI MEENAKSHI P.R., CGC
SRI.HRITHWICK C.S.-SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.) No.1189 of 2025
2
2025:KER:69387
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P.(Crl.) No.1189 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:
"I) Call for the records leading to Exhibit-P1 order and quash
the same as it is null and void, and declare that the act of
the third respondent is wholly without jurisdiction.
II) Dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular
documents produced along with this writ petition.
III) Such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case."[SIC]
2. The impugned order is an order passed under
Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that even though an alternative remedy is available against
the impugned order, this Court can invoke the jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts and
circumstances of this case.
4. This Court considered this matter in detail in
2025:KER:69387
Mohankumar K. and Another v. Union of India and
Others [2025 (4) KHC 450]. The relevant portion is
extracted hereunder:
"16. Then the counsel for the petitioners submitted that, since
there are two judgments in which this Court interfered in the
orders passed under the PML Act, if this Court is not inclined to
agree with those decisions, the case may kindly be referred to the
Division Bench after keeping in abeyance the impugned orders. I
cannot agree with the above submission of the counsel for the
petitioners. First of all, I am not disagreeing with the judgment of
this Court in Davy Varghese's case (supra). I am not saying that
this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed by
the adjudicating authority under Section 8 of the PML Act. Each
case is to be decided based on the facts in that case. The Court has
to exercise its discretion. Simply because, in one case, a learned
Judge exercised the discretionary jurisdiction vested with him while
invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, the same cannot be
treated as a precedent unless a dictum is laid down to that effect. I
find no dictum laid down in Davy Varghese's case (supra),
except the fact that the High Court can exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in appropriate
cases. Therefore, there is nothing to differ with the judgment in
Davy Varghese's case (supra). As far as Satish Motilal Bidri's
2025:KER:69387
case (supra) is concerned, as I mentioned earlier, the same is
already stayed by the Apex Court. As I mentioned earlier, Section
25 of the PML Act says that the appellate tribunal constituted under
sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Smugglers and Foreign
Exchange Manipulation (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 shall be
the Appellate Tribunal for hearing appeals against the orders of the
adjudicating authority and the other authorities under the PML Act.
Section 26 of the PML Act says about appeal to the appellate
tribunal, which is extracted hereunder:
"26. Appeals to Appellate Tribunal. -
(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (3), the
Director or any person aggrieved by an order made by
the Adjudicating Authority under this Act, may prefer
an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
(2) Any reporting entity aggrieved by any order of the
Director made under sub-section (2) of section 13, may
prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
(3) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2) shall be filed within a period of fortyfive
days from the date on which a copy of the order made
by the Adjudicating Authority or Director is received
and it shall be in such form and be accompanied by
such fee as may be prescribed: Provided that the
Appellate Tribunal after giving an opportunity of being
2025:KER:69387
heard entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said
period of forty-five days if it is satisfied that there was
sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.
(4) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2), the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving
the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard,
pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming,
modifying or setting aside the order appealed against.
(5) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every
order made by it to the parties to the appeal and to the
concerned Adjudicating Authority or the Director, as the
case may be.
(6) The appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be dealt with by
it as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be
made by it to dispose of the appeal finally within six
months from the date of filing of the appeal."
17. A detailed procedure is prescribed for filing an appeal and
hearing of an appeal as per Section 26 of the PML Act. The
composition, etc., of the appellate tribunal is narrated in detail in
Section 27 of the PML Act. The qualification for appointment in the
tribunal is also mentioned in Section 28 of the PML Act, which is
also extracted hereunder:
"28. Qualifications for appointment.
2025:KER:69387
(1)A person shall not be qualified for appointment as
Chairperson unless he is or has been a Judge of the
Supreme Court or of a [High Court or is qualified to be a
Judge of the High Court] [Substituted by Act 20 of 2005,
Section 3, for "High Court" (w.e.f. 1.7.2005).].
(2)A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a
Member unless he
[xxxx]
(b) has been a Member of the Indian Legal Service and
has held a post in Grade I of that Service for at least
three years; or
(c) has been a member of the Indian Revenue Service
and has held the post of Commissioner of Income-tax or
equivalent post in that Service for at least three years;
or
(d) has been a member of the Indian Economic Service
and has held the post of Joint Secretary or equivalent
post in that Service for at least three years;
(e) has been a member of the Indian Customs and
Central Excise Service and has held the post of a Joint
Secretary or equivalent post in that Service for at least
three years; or
(f) has been in the practice of accountancy as a
chartered accountant under the Chartered Accountants
2025:KER:69387
Act, 1949 (38 of 1949) or as a registered accountant
under any law for the time being in force or partly as a
registered accountant and partly as a chartered
accountant for at least ten years:Provided that one of
the members of the Appellate Tribunal shall be from
category mentioned in clause (f); or
(g) has been a member of the Indian Audit and
Accounts Service and has held the post of Joint
Secretary or equivalent post in that Service for at least
three years.
(3) No sitting Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court
shall be appointed under this section except after consultation
with the Chief Justice of India.
(4) The Chairperson or a Member holding a post as such in
any other Tribunal, established under any law for the time
being in force, in addition to his being the Chairperson or a
Member of that Tribunal, may be appointed as the
Chairperson or a Member, as the case may be, of the
Appellate Tribunal under this Act."
18. The appellate tribunal is constituted with competent persons.
In addition to that, as per Section 42 of the PML Act, any person
aggrieved by any decision or order of the appellate tribunal may
file an appeal to the High Court within 60 days from the date of
communication of the decision or order of the appellate tribunal
2025:KER:69387
to him on any question of law or fact arising out of such order.
Therefore, this Court need not invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order
under Section 8 of the PML Act unless there is an extraordinary
situation. This Court considered the contention raised by the
counsel for the petitioners on merit. I do not want to make any
observation about the same. There may be valid points for the
petitioners to challenge the orders passed by the adjudicating
authority. Every illegal order need not be entertained by this
Court by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution, especially when the PML Act is a complete Code,
containing provisions for an appeal to the appellate tribunal and
thereafter further appeal to this Court. This Court is burdened
with thousands of cases. Convicts are in jail waiting for a decision
in their appeal against conviction and sentence. In such
circumstances, when efficacious alternative remedies are
available, this Court need not interfere with the orders passed by
the adjudicating authority invoking the powers under Article 226
of the Constitution unless there is an extraordinary situation.
Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition is
to be dismissed, as not maintainable. All the contentions raised
by the petitioners in this writ petition are left open, and they are
free to agitate the same before the appellate tribunal in
accordance with law."
2025:KER:69387
In the light of the above principle, I am of the
considered opinion that the remedy of the petitioner is to
challenge the impugned order before the appropriate
authority in accordance with law. There is no merit in this
writ petition.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
SMF
2025:KER:69387
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1189/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2023
IN ORIGINAL COMPLAINT (OC) NO. 2013/2023
IN PAO NO. 2/KCZO/2023 DATED 31.05.2023
IN ECIR/KCZO/31/2020 PASSED BY THE
ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY (UNDER THE
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT,
2002)
