Zahoor Ahmad Dar V. Union Territory of J&K and others

WP(C)/1255/2020

AI Insights

Zahoor Ahmad Dar filed a writ petition against the Union Territory of J&K and others, challenging a provisional attachment order, a complaint, and a show cause notice issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner argued that he was wrongfully implicated in a case related to cross-border trade and that the proceedings violated his constitutional rights, including double jeopardy and lack of jurisdiction. The respondents contended that the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedies provided under the Act, making the writ petition not maintainable. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the availability of alternative remedies and the need for a factual adjudication that could not be addressed in writ proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808955 (HC-JAMMU_AND_KASHMIR)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & others v. M/S Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffar Nagar, Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India & ors, Thansingh Nathmal & Ors. v. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri & Ors, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. & anr. v. State of Orissa & Ors, Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & anr, S. A. Venkataraman v. Union of India & anr, Om Prakash Gupta v. State of UP, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Veereshwar Rao Agnihotri, Leo Roy Frey v. Superintendent, District Jail, Amritsar & anr, State of Bombay v. S. L. Apte and anr, Roshan Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab, Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan v. The State of Maharashtra, The State of A. P. v. Kokkiligada Meeraiah & anr, The Assistant Collector of the Customs, Bombay & anr. v. L. R. Melwani & anr, V. K. Agarwal v. Vasantraj Bhagwanji Bhatia & Ors, M/S P. V. Mohammad Barmay Sons v. Director of Enforcement, A. A. Mulla & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & anr, Union of India & Ors. v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar, Union of India & anr. v. P. D. Yadav, State of Rajasthan v. Hat Singh & Ors, State of Haryana v. Balwant Singh, Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. C.B.I, New Delhi, Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal & anr, Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Banaras Hindu University v. Shrikant, K.I. Shepherd v. Union of India, Mafatlal v. Union of India, Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India, Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta
• Laws Referred To: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: T M SHAMSI
• Assessee Lawyers: A H NAIK; ZIA
• Keywords: Double jeopardy; Fundamental rights; Jurisdiction; Money laundering; Provisional attachment order; Show cause notice
• Section: 11; 20; 5; 8; 18; 40A; 120; 121; 120-B; 120-B; 121-A

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR Reserved on:08.09.2020 Pronounced on:15.09.2020 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 Zahoor Ahmad Dar ... Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. A. H. Naik, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Zia, Adv. Vs. Union Territory of J&K and others …Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. T. M. Shamsi, ASGI. CORAM: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) Instant petition has been filed by the above named petitioner challenging the provisional attachment order bearing No.ECIR/04/ SRZO/2011/360 dated 27.05.2020 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the complaint bearing No.1308 of 2020 and the notice to show cause dated 20.07.2020 issued under Section 8 of the Act. 2) The case of the petitioner is that he was doing a legal cross border trade for a brief spell in the year 2009 in accordance with the rules holding the field. It is alleged that the police without any justification and cause have implicated the petitioner in a frivolous case on the basis of a disclosure statement made by one Mushfiq MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 Ahmad Lone in FIR No.254 /2009 for offences under Section 120, 120-B, 121, 121/A RPC and 11, 18, 20 and 40A of ULA(P) Act of Police Station, Saddar, Srinagar. It is averred that in the FIR it is alleged that an amount of Rs.13,85,000/ has been seized from other accused persons but the petitioner is not involved in the case. 3) It is further averred by the petitioner that as a sequel to the aforementioned FIR, the respondent No.2 has issued the impugned provisional attachment order under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the act and thereafter filed the impugned complaint before the Chairperson, Adjudicating Authority. 4) It is contended that the petitioner is already facing trial in respect of the allegations made in the FIR which has culminated in final report pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (TADA/POTA), Srinagar, wherein charges have been framed against the accused including the petitioner in terms of order dated 24.10.2019 of the said Court. 5) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of provisional attachment, the complaint and the show cause notice on the following grounds: a. That the impugned provisional attachment order, complaint and show cause notice are violating the fundamental and other Constitutional rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India. MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 b) That the petitioner is already facing trial before the Designated Special Court (Additional District & Sessions Judge TADA/POTA), Srinagar, and the new proceedings initiated by the respondents for the same alleged offence amounts to double jeopardy which is not permitted under the Constitution of India. c) That admittedly not a single penny has been seized from the possession of the petitioner, as such, he has been falsely implicated in the case and that no proceedings under the Act could be initiated against the petitioner. d) That the respondents have miserably failed to point out that the petitioner has owned any property out of the proceeds of any crime of whatsoever nature which is the basic requirement of any attachment order issued under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, or any other proceedings initiated there under. e) That the impugned proceedings/complaint is of the year 2011 and the respondents since then were in deep slumber. However, immediately, after passing of order by the trial court in FIR No.254 of the year 2009 under Sections 120, 120-B, 121, 121/A RPC & 11, 18, 20,40 A of ULA(P) Act P/S Saddar Srinagar, the respondents woke up and in a very hush hush manner passed the provisional attachment order and as a consequence thereof filed a frivolous complaint before the respondent No.3 who in turn issued the impugned show cause notice against the petitioner which is in clear violation of the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. f) That before issuing impugned provisional attachment order, the respondent no.2 was duty bound to satisfy the MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 requirements of Section 5 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 2002 which the respondent no.2 has miserably failed to do. g) That the impugned show cause notice is vague, cryptic, unfounded and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the same has been issued without application of mind. h) That the only reason given by the respondent no.2 in para 18 of the impugned Provisional Attachment Order is that the respondent no. 2 apprehends that there is likelihood of release of the seized amount of 13,85,000/- on technical grounds or otherwise by the trial court which reason is not tenable under law as the case pertains to year 2011 and moreso the property provisionally attached does not belong to the petitioner, as such, the respondents cannot be allowed to drag the petitioner by misusing their official power derived under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. i) That it is beaten law that no one should be vexed twice which law has been given a complete goby as the impugned order has been passed without application of mind as the respondents having entertained the complaint against the petitioner is sheer abuse of provisions of law running prejudicial to the rights and interests of the petitioner. j) That the respondents have passed impugned order with material illegality and impropriety which has caused great prejudice and violated fundamental rights of the petitioner besides the respondents have grossly erred both factually and legally as a result of which law has not been correctly addressed and understood as well as appreciated MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 as there have been no proceeds of crime which would have been liable to be attached by the respondents. k) That the impugned provisional attachment order, complaint and show cause notice issued by the respondents is legally and factually incorrect and as such is not sustainable under law and is not only an abuse of process of law but is also erroneous as no attachment order can be passed by the respondents against the petitioner without giving the schedule of it. 6) Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents and they have taken a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. In this behalf, respondents have filed brief submissions to explain the grounds on which they have resisted the maintainability of the writ petition. 7) According to the respondents, the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has straightway invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court without availing the remedies available to him under the provisions of the Act. On this ground, it is urged that without availing the alternative efficacious remedy, the petitioner cannot maintain the instant writ petition. In support of the contentions raised in the their brief submissions/objections, the respondents have relied upon a number of judgments passed by the Supreme Court, the details whereof are given as under: I. Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & others v. M/S Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Civil Appeal No.2413 of 2020 arising out of SLP(C) No.12892 of 2019); MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 II. Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffar Nagar (AIR 1969 SC 556); III. Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India & ors, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 337; IV. Thansingh Nathmal & Ors. v. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri & Ors (AIR 1964 SC 1419); V. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. & anr. v. State of Orissa & Ors, reported in (1983) 2 SCC 433; VI. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, (1997) 5 SCC 536; VII. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603; VIII. Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & anr, (2012) 7 SCC 621; IX. S. A. Venkataraman v. Union of India & anr, AIR 1954 SC 375; X. Om Prakash Gupta v. State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 458; XI. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Veereshwar Rao Agnihotri, AIR 1957 SC 592; XII. Leo Roy Frey v. Superintendent, District Jail, Amritsar & anr, AIR 1958 SC 119; XIII. State of Bombay v. S. L. Apte and anr, AIR 1961 SC 578; XIV. Roshan Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 1413; XV. Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 682; XVI. The State of A. P. v. Kokkiligada Meeraiah & anr. AIR 1970 SC 771; XVII. The Assistant Collector of the Customs, Bombay & anr. v. L. R. Melwani & anr. AIR 1970 SC 962; XVIII. V. K. Agarwal v. Vasantraj Bhagwanji Bhatia & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 1106; MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 XIX. M/S P. V. Mohammad Barmay Sons v. Director of Enforcement, AIR 1993 SC 1188; XX. A. A. Mulla & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & anr, AIR 1997 SC 1441; XXI. Union of India & Ors. v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar, AIR 2001 SC 1092; XXII. Union of India & anr. v. P. D. Yadav, (2002) 1 SCC 405; XXIII. State of Rajasthan v. Hat Singh & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 791; XXIV. State of Haryana v. Balwant Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1253; XXV. Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. C.B.I, New Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2545; XXVI. Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal & anr, (2011) 3 SCC 581; 8) Since the respondents have raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition, as such, learned counsel for the parties were asked to address arguments confined to this issue only. 9) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10) It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the provisions contained in the Act provide a complete adjudicatory mechanism to a person against whom a provisional order of attachment under Section 5 of the Act has been issued. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has a right to make a representation before the Adjudicating Authority in response to the notice that has been issued to him under Section 8 of the Act and in MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 case he feels aggrieved against the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the Act provides an Appellate Forum in terms of Section 25 of the Act. He has also referred to the provisions contained in Section 42 of the Act, according to which a person aggrieved of the decision of an Appellate Forum can file an appeal before the High Court. On the strength of these provisions of the Act, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the Act provides a self contained mechanism for redressal of grievances of a person and provides as many as two appeals for an aggrieved person but the petitioner, in the instant case, without availing these remedies has approached this Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which in the presence of an alternative efficacious mechanism, is not maintainable. 11) Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has argued that the impugned provisional attachment order issued by the Adjudicating Authority i.e. respondent No.3, is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the seized money has not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and, as such, there was no occasion for the Adjudicating Authority to issue a notice of show cause under Section 8 of the Act against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, once it is shown that the jurisdiction of an Authority is lacking, the petitioner is well within his right to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 12) The question whether invocation of writ jurisdiction of High Court is permissible where an alternative remedy is available, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 33. In the said case, the Supreme Court in paragraphs 9 and 10, held as under: “9.Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of U. P v. Brahm Datt Sharma (1987) 2 SCC SC 170, (1987) 3 ATC 319; AIR 1987 SC 943], Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse , (2004) 3 SCC 440; 2004 SCC (Cri) 826] and Union of India a v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28; 2006 (12) SCALE 262], but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle, viz, when a notice is issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose [See K.I. Shepherd v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431; 1987 SCC (L&S) 43; AIR 1988 SC 686]. It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter affidavit as also in its purported show cause. 10. The said principle has been followed by this Court in V.C. Banaras Hindu University v. Shrikant (2006) 11 SCC 42; (2006 (6) SCALE 66], stating: \"48.The Vice Chancellor appears to have made up his mind to impose the punishment of dismissal on the Respondent herein. A post decisional hearing given by the High Court was illusory in this case. 49. In K.I. Shephard v. Union of India, (1987( 4 SCC 431; 1987 SCC (L&S) 438; AIR 1988 SC 686, this Court held : MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 \"It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose.\" 13) In Mafatlal. v. Union of India, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 598, the Supreme Court observed that an Act cannot be a bar and curtail remedy under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution. The Court, however, added a word of caution and expounded that the constitutional Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise its jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. To put it differently, the fact that the High Court has wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not mean that it can disregard the substantive provisions of a statute and pass orders which can be settled only through a mechanism prescribed by the statute. 14) In Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 337, the Supreme Court held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction for relief and observed. The Court held as under: “12.In Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes AIR 1964 SC 1419, this Court adverted to the rule of self-imposed restraint that writ petition will not be entertained if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and observed as follows: MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 \"7….The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up.\" 15) In Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta, (1979) 3 SCC 83, the Supreme Court observed as under: “…..when a revenue statute provides for a person aggrieved by an assessment thereunder, a particular remedy to be sought in a particular forum, in a particular way, it must be sought in that forum and in that manner, and all other forums and modes of seeking it are excluded.” 16) From the aforesaid enunciation of the law on the subject, it becomes clear that normally a person cannot invoke writ jurisdiction of High Court in a case where the Statute provides an efficacious remedy for redressal of his grievances yet there are exceptions to this general rule of caution. In a case where the show cause notice is MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 issued without any jurisdiction or competence or the same is a result of mala fides on the part of issuing authority or the same is issued in violation of the Statutory provisions, the High Court has ample powers to entertain a writ petition in such a case. However, if the High Court starts inferring with the appellate powers of the Authorities that have been created under a Statute without any valid and substantial reason, then the very purpose and object of the Statue and the provision of appeal under the Statue will get defeated. It is the duty of the High Courts to see that the provision of appeal provided under a Statute is implemented in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the said Statute. Thus, while entertaining a writ petition, the provision of efficacious alternate remedy under a Statue has to be kept in mind. 17) In the backdrop of aforesaid legal position, let us now advert to the facts of the instant case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in case FIR No.254/2009 for offences under Section 120, 120-B, 121, 121A RPC and 11, 18, 20, and 40A of ULA(P) Act of Police Station, Saddar, which is pending disposal before the Designated Special Judge, Srinagar, and charges have also been framed against the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that as per the contents of the said charge sheet, an amount of Rs.13,85,000/ has been seized from some of the accused. The contention of the petitioner is that no money has been seized from his possession and, as such, there was no occasion for the Adjudicating Authority to issue MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 a show cause notice against him and for this reason, the impugned show cause notice is without any jurisdiction. 18) A perusal of the impugned Provisional Attachment Order shows that the seizure of the amount, regarding which Provisional Attachment Order has been issued, has been effect from accused Vipin Kumar Sharma (Rs.6.00 lacs), Sanjeev Kumar Tandon (Rs.5,35,000) and Mushfiq Ahmad Lone (Rs.2.50 lacs). There are allegations contained in the Provisional Attachment Order that though the seizure of the amount was not made directly from the possession of the petitioner, yet he was in touch with one of his close relatives based in Pakistan and also with all other accused persons. It is also stated in the impugned Provisional Attachment Order that the petitioner had admitted in his statement that he had sold 160 bags of Moong Dal to Suraj Prakash Badyal and that he had not received any payment from him and in this regard record shows a pending amount of Rs.5,60,000/ from Suraj Traders. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the Provisional Attachment Order, an amount of Rs.5,60,000/ has been seized from the possession of accused Suraj Prakash Badyal. 19) Section 3 of the Act defines the offence of „money laundering‟. It reads as under: “Section 3- Offence of money laundering – Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money laundering.” 20) From a perusal of the above quoted provision, it is clear that whosoever, directly or indirectly, attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or is knowingly part or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime etc. etc. is guilty of offence of money laundering. The expressions used in the provision are “directly” and “knowingly assists”. These expressions convey that it is not necessary that proceeds of crime should have been actually and directly concealed, possessed, acquired or used by an offender. Even an indirect link or assistance in an activity connected with proceeds of crime constitutes an offence of money laundering. So the mere fact that the proceeds of crime in the instant case have not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner does not mean that he has nothing to do with the amount that has been provisionally attached, particularly when there are allegations in the impugned order of Provisional Attachment that the petitioner was in league and in touch with other accused from whom the money was seized. MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 21) While confirming the Provisional Attachment Order, it is necessary that the above aspects of the case i.e. whether the petitioner was in any manner linked or associated with the co- accused, from whom the money was seized, are required to be gone into. This aspect of the matter involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in these proceedings. Therefore, to say that the impugned shown cause notice has been issued by the Adjudicating Authority without jurisdiction does not hold any merit. As already noted, there are allegations against the petitioner of his being in league with the co-accused, from whom the proceeds of crime are alleged to have been recovered. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority was well within its jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice to the petitioner so as to offer him an opportunity to present his case qua the allegations leveled against him in the impugned Provisional Attachment Order. 22) The facts regarding possession of proceeds of crime or its use or concealment or its acquisition can be determined only after adjudicating the facts and circumstances and by verifying the documents and other relevant record. In the instant cases, there is material on record giving the Authorities reason to believe for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner and other accused persons. Therefore, institution of the proceedings by the MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 respondents under the provisions of the Act cannot be found fault with. 23) The procedure contemplated under the Act provides for service of a notice under Section 8 of the Act by the Adjudicating Authority after passing of an order of provisional attachment thereby calling upon the concerned person to indicate the source of his income, earning or assets out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act provides that the Adjudicating Authority shall, after considering the reply to the notice, hearing the aggrieved person and taking into account all relevant material placed on record before him, by an order record a finding whether the provisionally attached property is involved in money laundering. It is only thereafter that the Adjudicating Authority can confirm the attachment of property. Not only this, the order of Adjudicating Authority is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal established in terms of Section 25 of the Act. Another forum of appeal is available against an order of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 42 of the Act. The Appellate Forum, in this regard, is the High Court. It is relevant to note here that the Member of an Adjudicating Authority has to be qualified for appointment of a District Judge or has been a member of Indian Legal Service or in the field of Finance, Accountancy or Administration. Similarly, the Appellate Tribunal has a Chairperson who must have been a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court. Thus, the Adjudicating Authority as well the Appellate MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 Tribunal comprises persons who are legally trained and are well versed with the principles of natural justice and other legal principles. In presence of these exhaustive quasi judicial remedies by the fora comprising judicially trained members/Chairperson and on top of it a provision of appeal to the High Court against an order of Appellate Tribunal, it can safely be stated that the provisions of Money Laundering Act provide an efficacious remedy to a person against whom the proceedings under the said Act are initiated. 24) The proceedings before the Authority under the Act are aimed at unearthing the truth relating to the offences under the Act. If the Authorities come to the conclusion that the offence under Money Laundering Act is made out, thereafter they can proceed against the offender while undertaking the process of investigation relating to truth or otherwise behind the allegation of money laundering. The High Court cannot entertain a writ petition so as to quash the entire proceedings. The Authorities under the Act must be allowed to investigate freely and fairly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act. 25) In view of the foregoing discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the issues raised in the writ petition cannot be adjudicated by this Court at this stage in writ proceedings. The writ petitioner is bound to submit his statement/documents/defence to the respondents to establish his innocence at the first instance so as to avoid further proceedings under the provisions of Money Laundering MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18 WP(C) No.1255/2020 CM No.3187/2020 Act. The respondents are also bound to follow the procedure contemplated under the Act by providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit his defence and establish his case before the concerned authorities. 26) For the forgoing reasons, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the present writ petition is premature and it raises complex issues of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon in these proceedings in view of the fact that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedies available to him under the provisions of the Money Laundering Act. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Any observation made in this order shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 27) In view of pendency of present writ petition, the petitioner may not have appeared before the Adjudicating Authority in terms of the impugned notice, therefore, it is directed that a fresh date shall be given by the Adjudicating Authority to the petitioner to present his case before it. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 15.09.2020 “Bhat Altaf, PS” Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2020.09.15 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "