FPA-PMLA-5411/MUM/2023
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 8th December, 2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority on an application preferred by the Appellant to seek copy of the order recording reasons to believe apart from other documents.
The application alleged to have been decided by the impugned order without providing an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant and there-by principle of natural justice has been violated though required to be followed as per section 6 (15) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2022. The prayer is accordingly to set aside the order impugned here in with remand of case for hearing of the application after providing copy of reply, if filed by the Respondent.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has contested the appeal. It is submitted that reply to the OA of the application was filed. The Authority considered the reply to the application and passed the impugned order dismissing the application. On the date of the hearing, Appellant did not appear and even Respondent could not appear as the Adjudicating Authority passed the order based on the pleading on the application for which no formal hearing was required. The Appellant was otherwise under obligation to find out the date of hearing and remain present to argue the application but he defaulted in putting appearance before the Adjudicating Authority on 8th December, 2022. In view of the above principles of natural justice have not been violated and thereby appeal be dismissed.
We have considered the rival submission of the parties and perused the record. The facts on record would show that the proceeding were initiated before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 17 (2) of the Act of 2002. The respondents here-in filed reply to the OA. The appellant filed an application seeking copies of certain documents which includes copy of the proceedings recording reasons to believe in respect of the search conducted at the office premises of Respondent no. 1. According to the Respondent, reply to the said application was filed however there is nothing on record to show that a copy of it was served on the Appellant and has not even been stated. The aforesaid is one aspect and otherwise there is nothing on record even to show that Adjudicating Authority fixed 8th December, 2022 for hearing of the application with a intimation to the parties. The aforesaid is second aspect relevant to find out whether principles of natural justice have been followed. The Respondent fairly admitted that even they were not present on 8th December to contest the application and otherwise filed reply. The date was not fixed for hearing of the parties on the application and accordingly the Appellant rightly made allegation of violation of principle of natural justice in passing the impugned order dated 8th December 2022. We find substance in the arguments of the appellants regarding violation of principle of natural justice. It is well founded in this case in absence of any material to controvert the allegation of violation of principle of natural justice.
As per Section 6 (15) of the Act of 2022, the proceedings have to be conducted after following the principle of natural justice. Since we find violation of the aforesaid principle, the impugned order is set aside. It however made clear that we have not touched and entered into the merit of the case rather it would be decided by the Adjudicating Authority after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. It is informed that next date fixed by Adjudicating Authority is 10th February, 2023. On the aforesaid date, the respondents here-in would supply a copy of reply of the application to the Counsel for the Appellant and thereupon the Adjudicating Authority would fixed date of hearing of the said application within ten days and pass the appropriate order thereupon. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid.
