Fake gun license case: HC refuses to overturn eviction notice against broker
Message from Syed Rukaya on Wednesday, October 19, 2022
Srinagar, October 18: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on Tuesday refused to quash an eviction notice against a broker in a false arms license case being investigated under the 2002 law on the prevention of money laundering.
The court rejected a plea by Syed Akeel Shah, who challenged the eviction notice issued by the Enforcement Branch, Sub-Zonal Office, Jammu on 23 September 2022 under Section 8(4) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
The claimant had challenged the notice on the ground that the order for seizure of the property in question confirmed by the contracting authority under section 8(3) of the PMLA 2002 is subject to appeal in the court of appeal within 45 days from the date a copy of the seizure order is received by the aggrieved person.
“It is thus provided for in article 26 of the law of 2002,” he said.
It has been argued by the petitioner through his solicitor that the eviction notice only gives the petitioner ten days to vacate the property in question, and in the event that the eviction notice is given effect before unless the applicant is able to avail himself of the remedy of appeal, appeal under section 26 of the 2002 Act, even if preferred within the limit, would be rendered useless.
Going through the documents on file, Judge Sanjeev Kumar noted that he found no absurdity or incongruity between Section 8 and Section 26 of the 2002 PMLA.
The court noted that section 8(4) of the 2002 Act clearly provides that the authorized officer can immediately take possession of the seized property once the provisional seizure order is confirmed by the contracting authority.
The tribunal pointed out that it goes without saying that in the event that the appellate tribunal suspends the order confirming the provisional seizure issued by the contracting authority under Article 8(3) of the Law of 2002, the eviction order or notice, if any, issued by the officer authorized under Rule 5(2) becomes ineffective.
“Let us not forget that a decree of a civil court becomes effective and enforceable immediately and without delay although the code of civil procedure provides ninety days to appeal against such a decree. This is true of many other laws,” he said.
The court observed that no legislation can be found where the effect and execution of a decree, judgment or order is deferred until the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for forming a recourse or review against such decree, order or judgment, as the case may be. be.
“One would rarely find a provision for the automatic suspension of a decree, ordinance or judgment subject to appeal or review before a higher instance or authority until the aggrieved person invokes the appeal before this instance “, said the court.
The panel noted that in some circumstances or in a given case, the ten-day period for an aggrieved person to appeal to the appellate court may seem a bit short as a reasonable time, “yet this Court cannot disguise the interpretative process as a substitute for “ten days” the time allowed under Rules 5(2) of the 2013 Rules and the phrase “immediately” used in section 8(4) of the Act of 2002 by “forty-five (45) days” or (fifty-five (55) days.”
“Notwithstanding the fact that in some cases the prescribed ten-day period for taking possession of foreclosed property may lead to severe results, but this Court cannot help, more particularly, where the Supreme Court has already upheld the powers of the 8(4) of the 2002 Act and found no loophole in any of the provisions of the 2002 Act and the rules thereunder,” Judge Kumar said.
Rejecting the plea, the court said there was no need to resort to the principles of statutory interpretation to interpret and understand the otherwise plain, clear and unambiguous provisions of section 8 of the 2002 Act and of Rule 5(2) of the Regulations. of 2013, whatever the difficulty and whatever the consequences.
“The provisions of section 8(4) of the 2013 Act, read together with rule 5(2) of the 2013 Regulations, shall apply so long as such provisions exist in the statute,” the bench said.
Earlier this year, the Directorate of Law Enforcement (ED) Jammu had seized 16 properties from various arms dealers and senior officials of J&K worth ₹4.69 crore in the fake license case weapons being investigated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002.