Reference
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Vijay Madhanlal Choudhary’s case, the court asserted that even if the contractors had ill-gotten money, the ED could not proceed under the PMLA without a scheduled offence. The court made it clear that the ED has the right to ensure a scheduled offence is registered against the contractors, but until then, their properties cannot be attached, nor any action initiated under the PMLA. The court was responding to pleas from private contractors challenging the ED’s provisional attachment orders and proceedings. The ED had registered an ECIR based on four FIRs related to illegal sand mining, conducted searches, and issued summons. The petitioners argued that the ED lacked jurisdiction as the FIRs did not reveal any proceeds of crime. Thus, making the ED’s role in investigating illegal sand mining questionable. The ED contended that the ECIR included more materials than the four FIRs. They argued that illegal sand mining generated proceeds of crime. They maintained that the writ petition was not maintainable. The petitioners had alternative remedies and that the investigation needed to continue. However, the court found that the ED had not clearly identified the scheduled offence committed by the petitioners. They had not determined the proceeds of crime. The judges remarked that the ED could not assume jurisdiction to attach properties on the premise. They were ill-gotten without proper justification. In conclusion, the court quashed the ED’s actions. They deemed them beyond jurisdiction and unwarranted. They stressed that provisional attachment should only be used in exceptional cases where urgent measures are required.
ApniLaw AI
Need the case law behind this point?
Ask ApniLaw AI in plain words. Every point of the answer shows the judgment paragraph or Act section behind it, with its page and paragraph number.
