Gurudev Jewellers Vs Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement (Appellate Tribunal Under Safema At Delhi)
Seized Cash Can’t Be Held Beyond 180 Days Without Due Process, Rules Tribunal -ED Faulted for Non-Supply of Key Documents- Retention Order Set Aside –
The appeal was filed against the Adjudicating Authority’s order dated 15.04.2024, which had allowed the ED’s application for retention of ₹5,75,930 seized from the premises of M/s Gurudev Jewellers during searches under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The seizure was made during a larger investigation into M/s Pranav Jewellers, Trichy, accused of running fraudulent deposit schemes under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Depositors Act. Gurudev Jewellers’ premises were among 13 locations searched. The appellant claimed the seized cash represented legitimate business receipts & that it had no link with Pranav Jewellers.
The appellant also contended that crucial Relied Upon Documents (RUDs), including the FIR & “reasons to believe” recorded by the ED, were never supplied, violating the Delhi High Court ruling in J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd. v. ED (2021). It further argued that the retention period had expired as no prosecution complaint was filed within the statutory limit.
The ED maintained that all relevant notices, the Adjudicating Authority’s reasons u/s 8(1), & OA papers were served, & that it was not bound to share documents seized from other persons. It also stated that a prosecution complaint had since been filed against Pranav Jewellers, including confiscation requests for the seized money.
