The Delhi High Court today said ED's provisional order of attaching some assets of Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh's two children in a money laundering case would continue but all subsequent proceedings against them would remain stayed.
"In the meantime, we consider it appropriate to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order (of ED) of provisional attachment so far as the petitioners herein are concerned. However, the impugned attachment shall continue," a bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath said.
The interim order came on a petition filed by Virbhadra's daughter Aparajita Kumari and son Vikramaditya Singh against the March 23 provisional attachment order passed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
They have also challenged the recently amended second proviso of section 5 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), claiming it should be declared unconstitutional as it was contradictory to the scheme of the Act and violated the Constitution.
The second proviso of section 5 (1) of PMLA provides that any property of a person may be attached if the ED's officer concerned has reasons to believe, on the basis of material in his possession, that if such property allegedly involved in money-laundering is not attached immediately, it is likely to frustrate any proceeding under the Act.
On this issue, the bench said it requires consideration as it involves various questions of law.
"It appears to us that the matter involves various questions of law which requires consideration in the main petition, in particular, the constitutional validity of the second proviso to section 5(1) of the PML Act," it said and fixed the matter for July 18 for further proceedings.
"We also make it clear that the period of stay pursuant to the present order shall not be taken into consideration for computing the period of 180 days stipulated for operation of the provisional attachment under section 5 (1) of PML Act," it said.
The petitioners have sought stay on the March 23 provisional attachment order of the ED, saying it has "exceeded its jurisdiction".
During the earlier hearing, senior advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, had questioned the provisional attachment order saying such action cannot be taken in the absence of a charge sheet against his clients.
Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for ED, had opposed the plea saying it was "pre-mature" as the agency has filed a complaint before its adjudicating authority which would take a call on it.
ED, in its affidavit, sought dismissal of the plea, saying the "purpose of attachment under the PMLA, 2002, needs to be seen. All attached properties have been found to be prima facie involved in the offence of the money laundering".
The petitioners claimed they were not named as accused in the ED's ECIR filed in the case and the March 23 order was passed but no scheduled offence has been alleged against them.
ED has provisionally attached assets worth Rs 15,85,639 belonging to Aparajita and Rs 62,86,747 of Vikramaditya, their joint petition said and added this order was passed without them being named in the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) of October 27, 2015 lodged against Virbhadra and others under the PMLA.
The plea said basis of passing provisional attachment order under PMLA is the Income Tax department's inquiries and investigation "which itself are under challenge and are not conclusive of any allegation" made against them.
