The Appellate Tribunal for SAFE, FEMA, NDPS, PMLA & PBPT Act addressed a petition for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, by an individual who had served over a year in judicial custody before filing the appeal.
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, NDPS, PMLA & PBPT ACT AT NEW DELHI
MP-PMLA-4924/RP/2018 (Stay) MP-PMLA-4925/RP/2018 (COD) &
FPA-PMLA-2536/RP/2018
Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CA … Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur
… Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the appellant | : Shri Ashwani Taneja, Advocate Shri V. Govinda Ramanan, Advocate, Shri Rahul Rai, Advocate, Shri Anurag Kalavatiya, Advocate, Shri Sushil Daga, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For the respondent | : Shri N.K. Matta, Advocate |
| CORAM | |
| SMT. ANANYA RAY | : MEMBER |
ORDER 04.06.2019
FPA-PMLA-2536/RP/2018
The learned counsel for the appellant argued at length on the condonation of delay applications and stated that the appellant was in judicial custody from 13.04.2017 to 24.05.2018 i.e. more than a one year. They also fairly agreed that the family of the appellant had received the adjudication order on 19.01.2018 but since the appellant was in judicial custody, he could not take effective steps to file the appeal. On a query from the Bench that even though he was released on 24.05.2018, the appeal was filed after four months thereafter, they have stated that in the
FPA-PMLA-2536/RP/2018
Page 1 of 3
entire case only one piece of land has been attached and considering his mental stage as he has suffered immensely being in custody, the delay occurred.
The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that they have a good case on merits in as much as the main offender has been let off by the adjudicating authority and the present appellant was only a Chartered Account in his office. He may therefore be given an opportunity for hearing of his case and hence the COD should be allowed.
Learned counsel for the Respondent strongly objected to this and stated that the appellant is not denying that they had received the order on 19.01.2018 and still there was a delay of 190 days to file the appeal. Being in judicial custody is not a reason for delaying the filing of an appeal on time as per the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He also drew attention to a link case of Babulal Agarwal and Prime Ispat Ltd. (not before me) where the present appellant was a Chartered Accountant and he stated that the appellant deliberately delayed filing of appeal as they have been awaiting the outcome in the linked case of the main offender before the adjudicating authority.
He relied on the Tribunal’s judgment in the case of SBI vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement in which Supreme Court’s decision on the issue of COD has been discussed.
I have examined the case and also heard both the parties. That the appellant was in judicial custody for a very long time, is not denied by either side, although after he was released from jail on 24.05.2018 he should have taken steps to file the appeal in which there was a delay. But considering the trauma of a long judicial custody, I feel the interest of justice would be served, if the appellant is allowed to proceed with his appeal. Hence I condone the delay in filing the appeal.
FPA-PMLA-2536/RP/2018
Page 2 of 3
The respondent to file their reply to the stay application as well as the main appeal within four weeks and rejoinders to be filed by the appellants within another four weeks thereafter.
List the stay petitions on 14th October, 2019.
(Ananya Ray) Member
New Delhi, 04th June, 2019 ‘A’
FPA-PMLA-2536/RP/2018
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the appeal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, can be condoned considering the appellant's long judicial custody and trauma.
Whether the appellant, a Chartered Accountant who was a minor offender, is eligible for an opportunity of hearing on merits.
Sunil Kumar Agarwal
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur
As recorded by the court registry
11 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
