Dilbag Singh @ Dilbag Sandhu Vs Union of India and Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed seven writ petitions challenging a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 09.08.2024 passed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The principal challenge concerned attachment of properties allegedly acquired before the scheduled offences and whether such properties could constitute “proceeds of crime” where the actual proceeds were not traceable.
The petitioners also challenged the PAO on the grounds that the mandatory requirement of recording “reasons to believe” under Section 5(1) of the PMLA had not been complied with, that the first proviso to Section 5(1) had not been satisfied, and that the PAO and material were not “immediately” forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioners further raised factual objections concerning alleged illegal mining and reliance on FIRs.
The petitioners relied, among others, on Pavana Dibbur Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Seema Garg Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement to contend that properties acquired before the scheduled offence could not be attached. The Enforcement Directorate defended the PAO by relying on Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and others Vs. Union of India and others, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Axis Bank and others and Prakash Industries Limited and another Vs. Directorate of Enforcement.
