Justice Navin Chawla said that the expression “pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under this Act [PMLA] before a Court” as contained 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.
This would not include the petitions filed by the person (whose properties were seized) challenging summons, search and seizure action or petitions seeking supply of relied upon documents.
It is also to be remembered that the power of attachment, seizure, and freezing of the properties and records is a draconian provision that has to be strictly construed, the Court stressed.
“As noted hereinabove, the expression “pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under this Act before a Court” relates to a complaint pending before the Special Court. To hold that a writ petition filed by the petitioner to challenge the summons issued by him, and on which challenge there is no order passed by the Court staying the investigation, would also extend the period by which the property seized can be retained by the respondent, would be contrary to the bare reading of the Section 8(3) of the Act. It would be like penalising the petitioner availing of the legal remedies against a perceived illegal act of the respondent,” the Court said.
Source: Barandbench
