Karnataka High Court
Sri Abbas Mohammed Khan vs The Deputy Director on 25 January, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
WRIT PETITION No.14245/2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI ABBAS MOHAMMED KHAN
S/O LATE ILYAS MOHAMMED KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.33, NORTH ROAD, CENTRE,
HUTCHINS ROAD,
MARUTI SEVANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 084.
REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SRI HAFEEZ MOHAMMED KHAN,
S/O LATE ILYAS MOHAMMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.35, HAINES ROAD,
NEAR COLES PARK,
FRAZER TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 005. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI KIRAN S JAVALI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SRI K CHANDRA SHEKARA, ADVOCATE (VIDEO
CONFERENCE))
AND
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ,
3RD FLOOR, B BLOCK,
BMTC BUILDING,
SHANTINAGAR, TTMC,
K H ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 027
BY PARASHIVAMURTHY M K
2. THE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
REP BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
SHRI BASAVARAJ R MAGDUM,
BENGALURU ZONAL OFFICE,
2
3RD FLOOR, B BLOCK,
BMTC, SHANTHINAGAR,
TTMC, K H ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 027. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE, SPECIAL COUNSEL)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 01.10.2019 TAKING COGNIZANCE IN SPL
C.C.NO.1088/2019 ANNXURE-B ON THE FILE OF THE XXI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES BENGALURU
CITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.01.2022 AND COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.9 through his Attorney Holder under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') praying to quash the order dated 01.10.2019 passed in Spl. CC No.1088/2019 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for CBI Cases), Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3
3. Respondent No.2 the Assistant Director of the Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as 'ED') filed a complaint against the petitioner and others before the Special Court for the offences punishable under Sections 44 and 45 read with Sections 3, 70, 4, and 8(5) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'PML Act') for punishing the accused persons of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act. It is alleged by the complainant in his complaint that an FIR in Crime No.73/2019 was registered by the Commercial Street Police, Bengaluru on 09.06.2019 against M/s. IMA Company Ltd., I Monetary Advisory Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. IMA') and also against Mohammed Mansoor Khan, the Managing Director of M/s. IMA for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. It is alleged that the Managing Director of M/s. IMA and other Directors of the company started Ponzy Scheme in the name and style of various entities and received huge amount of money from general public with a promise of high returns on their 4 investments and diverted the fund and cheated more than 30,000 middle class people and lower middle class people. It is further alleged that the accused entities and directors are indulged in the offences of money laundering by cheating the general public and through Ponzy Scheme, generated proceeds of crime in the form of movable and immovable properties and the offence under Section 420 is a scheduled offence under the provisions of the PML Act. It is further alleged that on the statement of co-accused recorded by the police, accused No.1 and its associates were charged with Section 420 of IPC, which is a scheduled offence under the PML Act. Respondent No.1 Deputy Director of ED had conducted investigation and had issued provisional attachment order on 27.06.2019 in ECIR/BGZO/03/2019 and sought confiscation of those properties which were already challenged before the appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal is said to be allowed the prayer of the petitioner and released some of the properties by furnishing some surety. 5
4. The petitioner has challenged the very authority of respondent No.2 by filing the complaint against him before the Court by raising the questions of law, which are as under:
The petitioner submits that this Petition raises the following questions of law:
(a) Whether the Central Government has issued general or special authorization for Officers on deputation to be Deputy Director in the office of the Directorate of Enforcement, under the PML Act.
(b) Whether the Directorate of Enforcement could have bestowed powers on such an Officer to be an Officer as provided under Section 48 of the PML Act.
(c) Whether the registration of ECIR by an Officer acting as Deputy Director the PML Act, in the absence of general or special authorization, is valid at Law.
(d) Whether the provisional Attachment Order once issued and confirmed by the adjudication Authority could have caused the Officer exercising power as Respondent to conduct further investigation and issue another Provisional attachment Order contrary to the provisions of the PML Act.6
5. It is contended that the aforesaid questions of law go to the very root of exercise of power of respondent No.1- Deputy Director of ED for initiation of proceedings under the PML Act.
6. The petitioner has also raised the following issues by challenging the authority of respondent No.1 Deputy Director of ED which is as under:
The Petitioner submits that this Writ Petition would also consequentially require consideration by this Hon'ble Court to the following issues:
(a) Whether the Central Government in issuing a vacancy circular in exercise of the powers under Section 49(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act for appointing officers from other departments as Deputy Director of Enforcement have been authorized and communicated to the selected officers for appointment as Deputy Director and exercise those powers.
(b) Whether the order of appointment issued by the Central Government represented by Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India has specifically authorized 7 the selected officer viz Deputy Director on deputation basis, as "Authority" for purposes of Section 2(1)(j) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (15 of 2003)
(c) If the Central Government has not issued any appointment order specifying the Deputy Director as an "Authority" under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the status and legality of the vacancy circular; the order of appointment issued by Central Government;
and the posting order posting the Deputy Director on deputation basis in Enforcement Directorate issued by the Director of Enforcement, for purposes of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, and the legality thereof.
(d) Whether mere issue of vacancy
circular and issue of appointment order
appointing such officers as Deputy Director on deputation basis can be considered or assumed to be authorization as "Authority" under Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (15 of 2003).
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that respondent No.2, who is a Superintendent of Police working in Lokayukta, has 8 been deputed to work as an Assistant Director of ED and he is not at all eligible as he is a State Police Officer and respondent No.1 is a Deputy Director of ED. Both these officers have no authority under the PML Act to proceed against the petitioner and they have not been authorized to conduct investigation as per the definition under Section 2(na) of PML Act. There is no specific authorisation given to respondent No.2, who is a Group- B officer, authorizing him to investigate into the matter. There is no separate authorisation or any notification issued under the PML Act for conducting investigation. The questions raised by the petitioner in the petition para Nos.7 and 8 has not been answered. The respondent have no authority of law and there is wrong exercise of power and the act done is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the very complaint is not sustainable and nullity in the eye of law. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the deputed officers. There is no separate authorization issued as per Section 51 of the PML Act and the police cannot investigate the matter as provided 9 under Section 45(1A) of the PML Act. The appointment order of respondent No.2-Assistant Director of ED under Order No.144/2017 is contrary to Section 45(1A) of the PML Act and even the exercise of power also runs contrary to Section 2(na) of the PML Act. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the authorization of officials is different from the appointment of officials. The language used in the Government Order cannot go against the provisions of the PML Act. He has no authority for filing the complaint and also to investigate into the matter and therefore, the respondent could not have sought for confiscation of the properties and hence, prayed for quashing of the complaint.
In support of his arguments, the learned Senior counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of M/S. CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS reported in 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 200.
8. The respondents have appeared through the learned Special Counsel and filed statement of 10 objections. The sum and substance of the statement of objections is that the Deputy Director has been appointed in accordance with Sections 48, 49 and 51 of the PML Act and once he has been appointed as Deputy Director under the PML Act, he shall exercise the powers conferred under the provisions of Section 51 of the Act. Once the Central Government has authorized the authorities under the Act and has made any appointment by way of deputation, there is no requirement of any separate authorization for carrying out the functions. The Deputy Director Sri Parashivamurthy has been duly appointed and authorized as per Order No.101/2018 dated 22.06.2018. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be acceptable.
The learned Special Counsel has also contended that the authorities under the Act appointing the respondent Assistant Director was in accordance with the Government Order. Once he has appointed and deputed to work in ED, the officer gets all the authority for investigating into the matter. The contention of the 11 petitioner's counsel that Grade-B officer cannot be appointed to a Grade-A rank for carrying out of the functions, is not correct as the PML Act does not make any distinction of Grade-A and Grade-B officers for the purpose of appointment. The PML Act enumerates only the class of officers to be appointed as authorities and once the officer is duly appointed as authority under the PML Act, the officer is empowered to exercise the functions in terms of Section 51 of the PML Act. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that he is denying all the averments made by the petitioner in the petition and also parawise allegations made in the petition and accordingly, prayed for dismissing the petition.
In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for respondent relied upon the following judgments:
(i) J Sekar Vs. Union of India (2018 SCC OnLine Del 6523)
(ii) Pradeep S. Wodeyar Vs. State of Karnataka (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1140) 12
9. Having heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for respondent perused the records.
10. It is the specific case of the petitioner that Central Government did not issue any special authorization for the officer on deputation to be worked as deputy director and Assistant Director in the office of the Directorate of Enforcement and PML Act. As such, no powers conferred on those officers under Section 48 of the PML Act, absolutely there is no authority or filing the complaint by the Assistant Director against the petitioner under the PML Act. The vacancy circular also not available to show the exercise of power under Section 49(1) of PML Act and on the deputation basis as authority for the purpose of investigation no special order has been passed therefore, the action taken by the respondent under the PML Act is nonest in the eye of law. On the other hand the respondent counsel produced the documents in order to show the appointment of the respondent 1 and 2 by way of notification issued by the Central Government which is 13 in accordance with the Section 45(1A) of the PML Act and also if an officer deputed to the ED by showing their designation, the officers will get all powers vested in the PML Act and they can exercise the jurisdiction under the Act.
11. For the convenience, the second proviso to Section 45 as under:
"Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by -
(i) the Director; or
(ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government."
12. The amendment to Section 45 came into force with effect from 1.7.2005 as per Section 45 (1-A) of PML Act as under:
"(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Prcedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorised, by the Central Government by a general or special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed."14
13. On bare reading of Sub-section (2) to the 2nd proviso to the section 45 (1) of PML Act empowers any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorize in writing in this behalf by a Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government. The amendment to provision 45 i.e., 45 (1-A) provides that no police officers shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorized by Central Government by a general or special order and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.
14. On perusal of the same in my opinion, the complaint in this case has been filed by respondent 2 who is the Assistant Director, working in Enforcement Directorate, (ED) filed the complaint by exercising the power under the PML Act. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended the Asst. Director post was filled up by deputation from the police department and he is B group officer and he cannot be posted to Group A cadre but the respondent counsel submits there is no such eligibility criteria prescribed for 15 the posting and the Central Government issued a notification posting the officers by exercising the power under Section 49 of PML Act for convenience it is necessary to refer the Sections 48 and 49 of the Act as under:
"Section 48. Authorized under Act - There shall be the following classes of authorities for the purposes of this Act, namely:-
(a) Director or Additional Director or Joint Director,
(b) Deputy Director,
(c) Assistant Director, and
(d) such other class of officers as may be appointed for the purposes of this Act."
"49. Appointment and powers of authorities and other officers.--
(1) The Central Government may appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be authorities for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Central Government may authorise the Director or an Additional Director or a Joint Director or a Deputy Director or an Assistant Director appointed under that sub-section to appoint other authorities below the rank of an Assistant Director.
(3) Subject to such conditions and limitations as the Central Government may impose, an authority may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on it under this Act."16
15. The counsel for the respondent produced the notifications issued by the Central Government for the officers were being deputed to work in ED and exercise the power under the PML Act.
16. The counsel for the respondent also produced appointment order notification dated 1.7.2005 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue in the Gazette which is as under:-
"G.S.R.440(E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 49 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act 2002 (15 of 2003), the Central Government hereby appoints, with effect from the 1st day of July, 2005, the Director of Enforcement holding office immediately before the said date under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999), as the Director to exercise the exclusive powers conferred under Section 5, section 8, section 16, section 17, section 18, section 19, section 20, section 21, sub-section (1) of section 26, section 45, section 50, section 57, section 60, section 62 and section 63 of the said Act and the said Director shall also concurrently exercise powers conferred by sub-section (3), sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) of section 17 26, section 39, section 40, section 41, section 42, section 48, section 49, section 66 and section 69 of the afore-said Act."
17. The another general order dated 11.11.2014 which is read as under:-
"In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section on ( ) of section 45 of the prevention of Money laundering Act 2002 (15 of 2003) hereafter referred to as the Act), the Central Government hereby authorizes the officers not below the rank of Assistant Directors in the Directorate of Enforcement to file complaint under Section 45 of the Act before the designated Special Court constituted under sub-section (1) of section 43 of the Act for trial of offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act."
18. On reading of the above said notifications, admittedly the officers working under ED are deputation posts borrowing the officers from other office of the Central Government including the police officials from the State Government. The notification dated 11.11.2014 the Government of India authorizes the officers not below the rank of Assistant Directors in the ED are empowered under Section 45 of the PML Act to file the complaint before the special Court constituted 18 under Section 43 (1) of the PML Act for the trial of offence punishable under Section 4 of the PML Act.
19. The respondent counsel also produced the administrative order of the ED issued by the Central Government of India dated 18.8.2017 by order (admission) No.144/2017, at Sl.No.14. Basavaraj R. Magdum who is ranked Superintendent of Police worked in Karnataka Lokayuktha has been selected and appointed as Assistant Director of ED on the deputation basis. The said notification of the Central Government in respect of the deputation of Basavaraj as Assistant Director on 18.8.2017. This notification was not challenged by any person aggrieved before the court or set aside by any court. Once a police officer of DSP rank has been deputed to work as Assistant Director in ED, and the said officer become an authorized officer under Section 45 (1A) of the PML Act and once he has taken charges as Asst. Director of ED he can exercise the power to investigate the matter as provided under Section 2(na) of the PML Act.
19
20. On bare reading of Section 48, it refers the classes of authorities for the purpose of PML Act as Director or Additional Director or Joint Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director and such other classes of officers as may be appointed for the purpose of this Act. Here in this case, Basavaraj Magdum was a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta and he has been selected and appointed as Assistant Director by the Central Government exercising the power under Section 49(1) of the PML Act.
21. As I have already stated above, the order of appointment issued by the Central Government dated 01.07.2005 empowers the officers for appointment to be worked as authorities under the ED. By an appointment order dated 18.08.2017 Basavaraj Magdum was selected and appointed on deputation basis and posted to work as Assistant Director until further orders with effect from 29.09.2017. This administrative order (Admn. No.144/2017) clearly reveals that, on 29.09.2017, the said officer Basavaraj 20 R. Magdum took charge as Assistant Director on deputation basis. Therefore, once the officer is posted as an Assistant Director, the Government by exercising power under Section 49(1) of the PML Act, he becomes the Assistant Director for the purpose of Section 48(1)(c) of the PML Act.
22. Sub-Section (2) of Section 49 of PML Act defines that without prejudice to the provisions of sub- section (1), the Central Government may authorise the Director or an Additional Director or a Joint Director or a Deputy Director or an Assistant Director appointed under that sub-section to appoint other authorities below the rank of an Assistant Director. Sub-section (3) of Section 49 imposes conditions and limitations as the Central Government may impose, an authority may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on it under this Act. On this background of appointment of respondent No.2 as Assistant Director, he can exercise the power under the PML Act for filing the complaint as per Section 45 of the PML Act in view of the notification dated 11.11.2014. 21
23. Therefore, respondent No.2 as an Assistant Director who after taking charge, is empowered to file the complaint before the Special Court under Section 45 of PML Act. The complainant has categorically stated in the complaint at first para stating that the complaint being filed under Sections 44 and 45 of the PML Act for commission of offence defined under Section 3 of the PML Act read with Section 70 and 8(5) and Section 4 of the PML Act and the complainant has been an authorized officer for filing this complaint in view of authorization issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi in F. No.6/14/2008-ES dated 11.11.2014. Therefore, once the officer is posted as an Assistant Director, he has exercised the power and filed the complaint before the Special Court. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that respondent No.2 has no authority to file the complaint cannot be accepted.
24. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble 22 Supreme Court in case of M/s. Canon India Private Limited. (supra) in respect of the Customs Act before the Central Excise against the order in respect of the matter dealt with the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said judgment is not applicable to the case on hand for the reason stated above.
25. Another contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel is in respect of the appointment of the 1st respondent-Deputy Director in respect of issuing the provisional attachment order on 27.06.2019 under Section 5(1) of the PML Act where the provisional attachment order has been challenged by him before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal said to have allowed the claim of the petitioner and passed an order. The provisional attachment order has not been challenged before this Court and therefore, the question of challenging the appointment of one Parashivamurthy M.K. as Deputy Director does not arise. The order under Section 5 of the PML Act is nothing but an administrative order which was challenged before the 23 Appellate Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal is not before this Court and not challenged in this petition. Therefore, the question of considering the power of the respondent No.1 cannot be dealt with by this Court in this petition. Respondent No.2 has filed the complaint as Assistant Director which is in the nature of charge sheet and there are two different proceedings in view of the order passed under Section 5 and filing complaint under section 45 of the PML Act. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner's counsel at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the petition questioning the authority of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not sustainable and the respondents are the authorities under the PML Act and who have been duly appointed by the Central Government and they exercised their power under the Act which is within the jurisdiction under the PML Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the issue in respect of the proceedings under Section 5(1) of the PML Act regarding provisional attachment orders passed by the Deputy Director has been upheld in the case of J. SEKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in 2018 SCC 24 Online DEL 6523. Therefore, this Court cannot find any illegality or irregularity in filing the complaint by respondent No.2 in order to set aside the same.
26. The other contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the Special Court has not applied its mind while taking cognizance and has also not passed a detailed order. In this regard, I have perused the order of taking cognizance by the Special Court, wherein the Special Court has stated that it has perused the charge sheet and taken cognizance against accused Nos.1 to 26 for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act and ordered to register a special case and issued summons to the other accused persons and NBW to the petitioner herein. It is submitted that accused No.9 is in abroad and not in Bengaluru and he has appeared through his attorney Holder. In this regard, the learned counsel for respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PRADEEP S. WODEYAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA report in 2021 SCC online SC 1140. 25 The Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring the case of Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta and also the Pepsi Foods Ltd. case, at paragraph 86, has categorically held as under:
86. xxxxxx "23. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation.
Investigating officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge- sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge-sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence 26 based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused.
Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking it on file."
(emphasis supplied)
27. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep S. Wodeyar's case (supra), the trial Court need not pass a lengthy order for taking cognizance in respect of the challan filed by the police after the investigation. The application of mind and the detailed order is required only while taking cognizance 27 in the private complaint filed by the complainant. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the trial Court has not applied its mind while taking cognizance cannot be acceptable.
28. On perusal of the entire records, respondent No.2 is an authorised officer under the PML Act appointed as per Section 49 of the PML Act and he is one of the officers specified under Section 48 of the PML Act. By issuing the notifications, the Central Government has empowered the officer to file the complaint before the Special Court and respondent No.2 is not officer who comes below the rank of the Assistant Director. Therefore, the question of quashing the complaint/challan filed by the respondent No.2 before the Special Court does not call for any interference.
29. I have already held that appointment of respondent No.1 is within the jurisdiction and appointment by the Central Government by issuing notification. Even otherwise, the provisional attachment order passed by respondent No.1 was 28 challenged before the appellate Tribunal. The petitioner is said to have obtained interim order. Such being the case, the contention of the petitioner challenging the appointment of respondent No.1 is not acceptable and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also upheld the proceedings under Section 5 of the PML Act in Sekar's case (supra).
The writ petition is devoid of merit and hence, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE CS/AKV