Karnataka HC Directs Authorities to Not Grant Permission for Construction Near Protected Monuments  ||  Delhi HC Sets Aside Ruling to the Extent of Restraining Indiamart to Provide ‘PUMA’ Search Option  ||  HP HC Grants Bail to NDPS Accused Citing Delay in Initiating Trial Proceedings  ||  Madras HC: Certification of an Entire Film Cannot be Denied Without Specifying the Objections  ||  J&K HC: Mere Registration of Criminal Case Doesn’t Constitute ‘Criminal Proc.’ for Impounding Passpor  ||  SC Refuses to Entertain Urgent Hearing of Plea Against Felling 875 Trees in HP  ||  SC Refuses to Stop Incineration of Toxic Chemical Waste from Bhopal Gas Tragedy  ||  SC Declines to Interfere with HC’s Order to Decide Schedule for Tiruchendur Temple Consecration  ||  Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief to Mokobara in Trademark Case  ||  Delhi HC: Students Shouldn’t be Excluded from Admission because of Untimely Declaration of Results    

OPTO Circuit India Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank & Ors. - (Supreme Court) (03 Feb 2021)

If a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner then the same has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner

MANU/SC/0049/2021

Criminal

The present appeal has been filed by Appellant raising the issue relating to the freezing of their bank account under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Appellant has contended that freezing of their bank accounts has prejudiced the Appellant. The court, however, had not found any reason to interfere with the initiation of the proceedings under PMLA. The subject matter herein related is that, whether the action taken by the CBI for alleged offence and the proceedings under PMLA initiated by Directorate of Enforcement had complied with the procedure provided under Section 17 of PMLA.

The Court observed that a perusal of Section 17 of PMLA would indicate that the pre-requisite is that the Director or such other Authorised Officer in order to exercise the power under said Section, should on the basis of information in his possession, have reason to believe that such person has committed acts relating to money laundering and there is need to seize any record or property found in the search. Also, such belief of the officer should be recorded in writing. As per the settled position, if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner.

In present case as the legal requirement was not fulfilled by the Authorized Officer before or after the de-freezing of account, the action taken by Authorized Officer and related communication is quashed. Directions passed to de-freeze the accounts and appeal is allowed.

Tags : PREVENTION OF MONEY-LAUNDERING ACT   2002   FREEZING OF ACCOUNT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved