Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Section 17(1A)—Order directing freezing of bank account and issuance of show cause notice by the Adjudicating Authority—Challenged—Plea of procedural irregularity—Petitioner company alleged to disbursed small loans to small borrowers through payment gateway while having an agreement with Chinese company—Court called for investigation into mobile loan apps run by Chinese companies as it can’t turn blind eye to attempt of neighbouring nation to destabilize India—Since the petitioner has to answer the notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority, any further reference being made to the case of petitioner is likely to prejudice his case before the Adjudicating Authority—It is for the petitioner to submit his reply in defense and thereafter it is for the Adjudicating Authority to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law—Petitioner cannot presume or assume that the Adjudicating Authority would not render justice to the case of petitioner meeting all the contentions that he would raise before the Adjudicating Authority by way of reply to the show cause notice—Court not found any violation of procedure stipulated under Section 17 of the PML Act—Finding no procedural infirmity as alleged by petitioner, no reason found to interfere with impugned proceedings at this juncture—Challenge to both the freezing order and show cause notice deserves to be rejected—Petition dismissed. [Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226]
[Paras 15 & 18]