Partly allowed

FPA-PMLA-2554/DLI/2018 of Shri Ravi Vishvanathan v. The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

ATFP19 Mar 2025FPA-PMLA-2554/DLI/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellate Tribunal allowed appeal against order retaining seized documents and digital devices under PMLA. Court directed release of originals if not relied upon in criminal cases, allowing ED to retain true/cloned copies, with appellant undertaking not to challenge authenticity.

What did the court decide?

Seized documents and digital materials to be released to appellant after ED takes true/cloned copies, provided such material is not relied upon in any pending criminal trial.

FPA-PMLA-2554/DLI/2018 of Shri Ravi Vishvanathan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | ATFP (2025)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

¶2

FPA-PMLA-2554/DLI/2018

¶3

Shri Ravi Vishvanathan … Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who Argued

¶8

For the appellants : Mr. Jai Anant, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Adv. For the respondent : Mr. Chandra Prakash, Adv.

¶9

CORAM SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

¶10

FINAL ORDER 19.03.2025

¶11

Dictated by: RAJESH MALHOTRA

¶12

Present appeal is filed under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money

¶13

Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Original Application No. 183/2018 whereby the record/material seized from the possession of the present appellant was permitted to be retained under Section 17 (4) of PMLA. The details of the said documents and materials are as under:

¶14

I. The details of documents/digital devices recovered from Sh. Ravi Visvanathan from his residence during search on 16.02.2018 as under:

¶15

a. Sized loose sheets/documents -Page No. 1 to 119

¶16

b. Digital devices recovered and seized

¶17

i. Mobile Samsung Galaxy Oh 7

¶18

ii. Mobile Moto G (Motorola)

¶19

iii. Moto C Plus (Motorola)

¶20

c. Details of seized hard disk and pen drive

¶21

i. Internal hard disk of Laptop

¶22

ii. Pen drive Black-8GB

¶23

d. Laptop HP Notebook

¶24

FPA-PMLA-2554/DLI/2018 Shri Ravi Vishvanathan vs. ED, New Delhi

¶25

¶26

As per the facts of the case FIR was registered by CBI/EOU.IV/EOII, New Delhi, vide No. RC2202017 E 0011 dated 15.05.2017 against M/s INX Media (P) Ltd. through Ms. Indrani Mukerjea & Others. M/s INX News Pvt. Ltd. through Mr. Pratim Mukerjea @ Peter Mukerjea & Others, Mr. Karti P. Chidambaram, M/s Chess Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (CMSPL). M/s Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (ASCPL) & Others for commission of offence punishable u/s 120-B r/w 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 8, 13(2) & 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, The Directorate of Enforcement recorded ECIR/7/HIU/2017 dated 18.05.2017 and initiated investigation into the case under PMLA, 2002.

¶27

During the investigation, search was conducted by ED at the residential premises of the respondent on 16.02.2018 as there was reason to believe that search will lead to recovery of incriminating material related to the investigation. After search and seizure, ED filed Original Application No. 183/2018 for permission to retain the same, till conclusion of investigation.

¶28

The Adjudicating authority after going through the allegations mentioned in the OA and relied upon documents, issued the notice to the defendant (herein appellant). After receiving the reply and hearing the rival submissions, the Adjudicating Authority, vide order dated 01.08.2018 permitted the ED, to retain the said seized material.

¶29

Aggrieved by the said order appellant filed the present appeal.

¶30

During the arguments Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no reason to believe with the Adjudicating Authority for permitting the ED to retain the said documents/seized material in absence of anything on record to show that the said documents/material was involved in money laundering or to prove the said allegations. He contended that, even ED was not having any reason to believe to conduct

¶31

FPA-PMLA-2554/DLI/2018 Shri Ravi Vishvanathan vs. ED, New Delhi

¶32

¶33

the search and seizure of the documents/seized material. She further pointed out that no prosecution complaint is filed against the appellant till date, nor the seized documents/material is relied upon in any criminal trial. Prayer is accordingly made to allow the present appeal.

¶34

Ld. counsel for the respondent strongly opposes the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and stressed that bare perusal of impugned order and the original application point towards the direction that there was reasonable belief for effecting the seizure and its confirmation by the ED and thereafter by the Adjudicating Authority. He further pointed out that the said seized documents/material will be required for further investigation of the case, however he is not aware whether the said material is relied upon by any investigation agency in any other criminal case.

¶35

After hearing the rival submissions, we have given our thoughtful consideration of the same. We are of the view that if the said seized documents/material are not relied upon by any investigation agency as a relied upon document in any criminal trial (either chargesheet or prosecution complaint), then certainly the said material needs to be released to the appellant and if the same is already relied upon, then the said seized documents and material cannot be released being relied upon in the criminal case for trial of the accused persons.

¶36

Accordingly in view of our observation in the preceding para, the seized documents/material if not relied upon in any criminal trial (chargesheet or prosecution complaint case), the same be released to the appellant after taking the photocopies of the documents and cloned copies of the digital record. ED is at liberty to take the enforcement of the appellant as true/cloned copy of the original. Further appellant will tender that he will not challenge the authenticity of the said documents and cloned copies. However, it is made clear that if any of the said seized

¶37

FPA-PMLA-2554/DLI/2018 Shri Ravi Vishvanathan vs. ED, New Delhi

¶38

¶39

documents and material is already relied upon in any criminal case, then the same cannot be released and appellant will have right to get only the photocopies/cloned copies from the concerned trial court, till the criminal cases attains finality.

¶40

This order be complied within 3 months from the date of expiry the period of limitation for filing appeal under Section 42 of the PMLA.

¶41

Appeal disposed of with direction.

¶42

Pronounced on this 19^th day of March, 2025.

¶43

(Rajesh Malhotra (G. C. Mishra) Member Member

¶44

‘AK’

FPA-PMLA-2554/DLI/2018 of Shri Ravi Vishvanathan v. The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-2554/DLI/2018 of Shri Ravi Vishvanathan v. The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases