70. If the contention as advanced on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate is accepted, it would mean that whereas the property cannot be provisionally attached under Section 5(1) of the PMLA and/or seized or frozen under Section 17 of the PMLA without (a) theDirector having a reason to believe, on the basis of material available with him, that the properties are proceeds of crime and (b) recording such reasons in writing; the same officer can on mere suspicion pass orders for freezing the properties without recording reasons. Further, there are strict timelines provided under the PMLA. The orders of provisional attachment and/or seizure and/or freezing cannot extend beyond the period of 180 days. The Director of the Enforcement Directorate (or the officer authorized by him) is required to file a complaint by seeking extension of the period of retention from the adjudicating authority within a period of thirty days from passing such order. However, this safeguard would also be rendered meaningless if the Enforcement Directorate‟s contention is to be accepted; the Directorate could – as has been done in this case – freeze the assets without recording reasons and without making any application or complaint to the Adjudicating Authority. This Court is unable to accept that even in cases where the Director of the Enforcement Directorate has reasons to believe that the property is proceeds of crime, he can provisionally attach the same only for a period of one hundred and eighty days, but in cases where he has mere suspicion that the property in question is proceeds of crime, he can without recording any reasons, without issuance of any notice and without any obligation to make a complaint/ application in this regard to the Adjudicating Authority, pass an order freezing the property for an indeterminate period. This interpretation would militate against the scheme of the PMLA as enacted by the Parliament.
