In an order passed on January 31, single-judge Justice Navin Chawla had also said that the expression “pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under this Act [PMLA] before a Court” in Section 8(3) of the PMLA relates only to a complaint that is pending before a PMLA court in relation to the person from whom the property was seized.
The single-judge had rejected the ED’s argument that since Section 8(3) of PMLA does not provide for any consequence for lapse of 365 days, there can be no direction for the return of the property so seized.
He had further said that the continuation of such seizure beyond 365 days, in the absence of pendency of any proceedings relating to any offence under the PMLA or the corresponding law of any other country, shall be without authority of law and, therefore, violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Source: Barandbench
