However, the judge noted that a co-ordinate Bench has rendered a contrary view on the issue in Aftabuddin Ahmed and another vs. Enforcement Directorate and others.
Therefore, Justice Choudhury made a reference for a larger bench decision so that a conclusive judicial view may be given on this subject.
The points of reference are:1.
Whether the reason to believe, which is to be recorded in writing by the Authorized Officer on the basis of material in his possession to pass a Provisional Attachment Order [PAO] under Section 5[1] of the PMLA, is confidential in character or not, and/or is to be furnished to the affected person or not?
If such reason to believe is made part of the PAO, whether the PAO suffers from any jurisdictional error or not?
However, the judge noted that a co-ordinate Bench has rendered a contrary view on the issue in Aftabuddin Ahmed and another vs. Enforcement Directorate and others.
Therefore, Justice Choudhury made a reference for a larger bench decision so that a conclusive judicial view may be given on this subject.
The points of reference are:
1. Whether the reason to believe, which is to be recorded in writing by the Authorized Officer on the basis of material in his possession to pass a Provisional Attachment Order [PAO] under Section 5[1] of the PMLA, is confidential in character or not, and/or is to be furnished to the affected person or not?
2. If such reason to believe is made part of the PAO, whether the PAO suffers from any jurisdictional error or not?
