Supreme Court Bench observed adverse inference against Investigating Officer due to contradictory affidavits regarding email availability. Counsel argued proceedings were time-barred under Section 5(1) of PMLA and retention order was invalid. Hearing adjourned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS & PBPT ACT AT NEW DELHI
MP-PMLA-4115/PTN/2018 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-2151/PTN/2018
Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta … Appellant MP-PMLA-4457/PTN/2018 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-2222/PTN/2018 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Shri Mukesh Anand, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER
ORDER 27.03.2019
FPA-PMLA-2151 & 2222/PTN/2018
This order is passed in continuation with the order dated 3rd January, 2009, 16th January, 2009 and 13th February, 2009. The I.O has filed the affidavit. In para-2 of the affidavit it is stated that e-mail dated 9th January, 2017 is not available in the file. It appears prima facie that the statement made in the latest affidavit is contrary to the statement made earlier. Under these circumstances adverse inference shall be drawn at the time of passing final order.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the proceeding initiated by the respondent under section 5(1) of PMLA is otherwise not beyond the period of 180 days even as per the admission made by the respondent. It is also stated by him that no charge sheet has been filed under Section 173 of the Act
FPA-PMLA-2151 & 2222/PTN/2018
Page 1 of 2
against the appellant which is the pre condition of the first proviso of Section 5(1) of the Act. No prosecution complaint is pending against the appellant. He also submitted that the earlier application filed by the respondent under Section 17(4) for retention of the property was dismissed by order dated 4th July, 2017. Even the said order has not been challenged by the respondent. The second application for the same relief was not maintainable. The 180 days from the date of seizure of the amount has already been expired. Mr. Nitesh Rana, Advocate seeks time to take instruction about the pendency of FIR or Charge sheet of the schedule offence.
List on 3rd May, 2019.
The appearance of the I.O. is not required for the next date of hearing.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G. C. Mishra) Member
New Delhi,
27th March, 2019
‘K’
FPA-PMLA-2151 & 2222/PTN/2018
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings initiated under Section 5(1) of PMLA are barred due to delay exceeding 180 days from seizure without a charge sheet.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rakesh Kumar Gupta
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal
Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna
Manmohan Singh
G. C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
18 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
