Vijayam Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Kerala High Court)
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the mother-in-law, wife, and brother-in-law of Mr. M.K. Chandran, challenging the provisional attachment of their properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The attachment was made through a provisional attachment order issued in connection with ECIR No. ECIR/KCZO/07/2022.
Mr. M.K. Chandran had earlier been booked by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau for offences under Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, concerning the alleged misappropriation of ₹6,07,05,069.06 during the period from 01.07.2007 to 30.06.2017 while serving as Accountant of the Kerala Advocates’ Welfare Fund Trust Committee. The investigation was later taken over by the CBI.
The petitioners contended that two of the attached properties had been purchased long before the commencement of the alleged predicate offence. According to them, one property had been purchased under Sale Deed No.1171/2005 in the name of the second petitioner, while another had been purchased under Sale Deed No.3256/1/2003 dated 20.11.2003. They argued that these properties were acquired before 01.07.2007 and therefore were not liable to attachment. The second petitioner also asserted that Mr. M.K. Chandran had opened a bank account in her name without her knowledge and that the amounts deposited therein represented income from five stage carriage buses operated by her family. Relying on Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, they submitted that immovable properties acquired before the commission of the predicate offence could not be attached under Section 5 of the PMLA unless the proceeds of crime had been taken outside the country. They sought quashing of the provisional attachment order.
