31. In light of the aforementioned scheme of several provisions of P.M.L. Act, the question as to whether the proceedings under Section 5, 8 and 17 are civil proceedings or criminal is required to be addressed. The argument is that unless a report or the complaint as contemplated under first proviso to Section 5 and also as contemplated in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17 is made, the proceedings are not sustainable. As noticed in greater detail, the ultimate object of Section 5 is provisional attachment of the property. The object appears to prevent destruction of the evidence which may be produced in the proposed criminal proceedings or to take in possession the property involved in the moneylaundering, though the proceedings can be initiated on the basis of the reports or complaint, etc., as contemplated in the first proviso to Section 5. In view of second proviso, proceedings can be initiated under Section 5 even in absence of compliance of first proviso. Various safeguards impose fetters upon the attaching officer obliging him to immediately send the order made by him and the factum of attachment of the property made by him within the prescribed period to the Adjudicating Authority to enable it to adjudicate upon such attachment. It is pertinent to note that the legislative intent insofar as powers of the Adjudicating Authority are concerned, is made clear under Section 6 (15) by clarifying that it is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, if the Adjudicating Authority was intended to be an authority dealing with the criminal acts, the proviso dispensing with Code of Civil Procedure would have been made. These facts thus sindicate that the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 is authorized to undertake civil proceedings and adjudicate thereupon as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents.”
